Slashdot Mirror


67-Kilowatt Laser Unveiled

s31523 writes "Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has announced they have working in the lab a Solid State Heat Capacity Laser that averages 67 kW. It is being developed for the military. The chief scientist Dr. Yamamoto is quoted: 'I know of no other solid state laser that has achieved 67 kW of average output power.' Although many lasers have peaked at higher capacities, getting the average sustained power to remain high is the tricky part. The article says that hitting the 100-kW level, at which point it would become interesting as a battlefield weapon, could be less than a year away."

395 comments

  1. Obligatory by Sneakernets · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cue the frickin' lasers jokes in 3...2...1...

    --
    "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In soviet North Korea, only old people have sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads!

    2. Re:Obligatory by servoled · · Score: 4, Funny

      Two frickin' lasers walked into a bar... the third one ducked.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    3. Re:Obligatory by EinZweiDrei · · Score: 1

      Jumping... is useless.

      --
      Perhaps life really is full of possibilities.
    4. Re:Obligatory by vandan · · Score: 1

      North Korea has never had soviets.

    5. Re:Obligatory by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Funny

      That Yamamoto guy is trying to take credit for others' work. The "laser" is actually Alan Parsons' project!

    6. Re:Obligatory by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

      A priest, a rabbi, and a horse walk into a bar. The bartender says "What is this, a joke?"

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    7. Re:Obligatory by proxy318 · · Score: 1

      A horse walks into a bar and bartender says "Why the long face?" The horse says "My wife just died."

      --
      Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
    8. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I didn't get the joke. Can somebody please explain? Thanks.

    9. Re:Obligatory by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Informative

      North Korea has never had soviets.

      Actually, not Korean soviets as such, but those of the USSR type were not unknown during the Korean war (or 'police action'). Many UN/Allied aircraft were lost during the Korean war to Soviet fighter pilots. See here for some info: http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/SovietAces.html

      I recall from my youth, I had opportunity to listen to one of my fathers' buddies that had flown an F86 Sabre in combat during the war. I remember him saying that they could quickly tell if the enemy pilot they faced were Soviet or Korean by the way the more inexperienced and poorly-trained Korean pilots handled their aircraft, as opposed to the highly-trained, experienced, and confident Soviet pilots.

      He said they knew that if the pilots they faced were Soviet, chances were very good that he or one of his buddies was about to die, so determining which they faced as soon as possible was a high priority.

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:Obligatory by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I thought the Alan Parson Project was some form of hovercraft?

    11. Re:Obligatory by mwilli · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, laser shoots you!

      --
      My sig beat up your sig.
    12. Re:Obligatory by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Strange, I thought that the correct name for the battlefield weapon would be Yamoto gun. Are we sure there is no typo ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    13. Re:Obligatory by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      A priest, rapist and pedophile walk into a bar.
      And that's just the first person ;)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    14. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That smiley there says you must be a Belgian.

    15. Re:Obligatory by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      And you wonder why we've been exploring Saturn recently.

      That's no moon, it's a space station!

    16. Re:Obligatory by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Cue the frickin' lasers jokes in 3...2...1... lasers?

      *making quote gesture*

      It is "Laser" .. you insensitive clod!
      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    17. Re:Obligatory by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the NL in my name?
      It stands for Netherlands, so I'm dutch

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
  2. Uhh?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yamamoto Cannon!!!

  3. Eleven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    But my laser goes all the way up to 11 ...

    1. Re:Eleven by bigwave111 · · Score: 1

      How is this only a 1 on the funny? I lost use of a nasal passage from this comment

    2. Re:Eleven by Alias777 · · Score: 1
      But MY laser goes up to thirty seven

      37

      37

      37

  4. don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Vicsun · · Score: 2, Funny

    tag it ohgodsomeonewilltagthissharks instead and show some originality

    1. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and now, please proceed and tag this "sharks"

    2. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by ResidntGeek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Then come be a nonconformist with me by wearing all the same clothes and listening to the same music I do!

      --
      ResidntGeek
    3. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by daeg · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      You bring the sorrow, I'll bring the razors.

    4. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by LordEd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Be even more original and tag is 'lasers'. No one will every find it then.

    5. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by pnot · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ... and the next time we get a story on it, make sure to tag it ohgodsomeonewilltagthisohgodsomeonewilltagthisshar ks. [Apologies for the interpolated space; it is a `feature' of Slashdot.]

    6. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Both "sharks" and "ohgodsomeonewilltagthissharks" are retarded tags. Christ children, the tag system is there to make is easy to search for related stories. Stop using it for a cheap laugh. Some of us are getting tired of the growing immaturity on slashdot. Hell I remember when there used to be more comments modded insightful and interesting then there were modded funny. That's gotten pretty rare.

      In a couple years you may actually want to look at all the stories about (for example) lasers. Does it make sense to search for "sharks"?

    7. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole tag system is based on lack of originality. Innovative tags don't bubble up to the top, because tags only one person would think of aren't useful.

    8. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      growing?

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    9. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      oh sure, let's all do the same thing. that's the fucking definition of original.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    10. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by LordEd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does it make sense to search for "sharks"?
      1. If you want to read about sharks, search for 'lasers'
      2. If you want to read about lasers, search for 'sharks'
      3. If you want to read about Microsoft doing something good, search for 'itsatrap'
      4. If you want to read about Vista, search for 'defectivebydesign'
      5. If you want to read about Canada, search for 'blamecanada'


      Nowhere in the tagging beta faq does it say that the main purpose of tags is for searching. It says "We don't know exactly how this will all work, and a lot of it really depends on you." Just because a tag isn't popular doesn't mean you can't use it. I tend to use the tag 'lawsuit' for anything related to somebody suing somebody, although i don't usually see it pop up to the top.
    11. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      How are they showing originality if they are just doing what you say?

    12. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Meatloaf+Surprise · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ...that's what she said

    13. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      How are they showing originality if they are just doing what you say?
      They're not, which is what makes it funny :-)

    14. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Grr · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Unless they're looking for articles on sharks

    15. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      You bring the sorrow, I'll bring the razors.

      That's pretty clever. What's it from?

    16. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

      How are they showing originality if they are just doing what you say?

      They're not, which is what makes it funny :-)

      I don't think you know the meaning of that word.
      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
    17. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      I don't think you know the meaning of that word.

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Fixed it for you ;)
    18. Re:don't tag this 'SHARKS' by jandrese · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen the tags are more of a way for some people to put snarky (or, more often lame) one-word comments on articles that appear on the front page. In some ways I don't like it because it reminds me of Fark and their "boobies" or "humor" tags, but on another the tags are sometimes more interesting than the writeup itself so I can't dog them too much.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  5. Not Car Wars level yet by ArmorFiend · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yawn...somebody wake me when they can make it 500 pounds, 2 spaces, $8000, and it can cut through an engine block in 1/10th of a second.

    -Uncle Albert

    1. Re:Not Car Wars level yet by pyro_peter_911 · · Score: 1

      Yawn...somebody wake me when they can make it 500 pounds, 2 spaces, $8000, and it can cut through an engine block in 1/10th of a second.

      Yet a cloud of smoke still stops it cold...

      Peter
      (ArmorFiend, that was one obscure reference.)

  6. I... I can't stop myself by Centurix · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    1.21 Gigawatts!

    --
    Task Mangler
    1. Re:I... I can't stop myself by AoT · · Score: 1

      Jigga Whats?

    2. Re:I... I can't stop myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jigga please!

  7. two things by go_jesse · · Score: 1

    Remember that movie Real Genius? Is this as powerful as that?
    seriously, what I'm interested in is the non-military applications of technologies like this. Oh yeah, and if it was a weapon, what would be the effective range at 65kW or 100kW? The article is a little light on information.

    1. Re:two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is a little light on information.
      Light indeed.
    2. Re:two things by evil+agent · · Score: 1

      Remember that movie Real Genius? Is this as powerful as that?

      You doubt the awesome power of Real Genius!?!?

      But seriously, forcing your enemy to watch Real Genius would be a more effective weapon than this laser...

      --
      End transmission.
    3. Re:two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is a little information on light.

    4. Re:two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real Genius related question:

      How do you make sure the optics are clean/scratch free in battle field condition?
      It doesn't take much of imperfection to have a part of the optics to absorb enough energy to destroy itself.

      Personally I don't think there is much of a range issue with lasers. The atmospheric condition etc would probably affect it more.

      The only draw back is that it has to be line of sight and hopefully you don't have friendlies or civilians behind your target. The place that make most sense is on a boomer/death star/UAV. :r

    5. Re:two things by fontkick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What kind of non-military applications exist for a 100kW laser... a Houseful-of-Popcorn-O-Matic?

    6. Re:two things by alisson · · Score: 1

      I loved that movie. And based solely on that fact, I can already tell you the purpose of this laser, or "laZor":

      Popcorn for everyone :)

    7. Re:two things by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Oh, there probably are civilian applications (bonding Teflon to frying pans, that sort of thing) but as a military weapon it seems to me that a high-powered CW device is less destructive than a really-high-powered pulse laser.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:two things by AoT · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly they were trying for a 4Megawatt *chemical* laser in Real Genius.

      This is a 65Kw solid state laser, so about 100 times weaker.

    9. Re:two things by evanbd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Industrial uses of high-powered lasers include laser cutting and welding. I don't have any experience with either one, but I imagine they could benefit from power increases (cut thicker parts faster) and solid state (hopefully means cheaper and lower maintenance).

      Laser-thermal rockets are also not that far away from reality; what they lack is a fair bit of development effort, currently hindered by the cost of high power continuous output lasers. The basic way they work is a high power laser on the ground aimed at a heat exchanger on the rocket that heats hydrogen (the best working gas) to very high temperatures (relatively... 2-3000 kelvin is enough to be interesting with hydrogen) and exhaust it, developing several times the specific impulse of conventional chemical rockets. The advantages are lowered cost if you have a high flight rate -- you can use the expensive bits for many many launches per day, realistically limited only by how fast you can get new boosters into position. And yes, the math suggests you can do single stage to orbit (depends on the details of your heat exchanger performance, obviously). And, they're absurdly power-hungry -- one newton of thrust requires ~ 5kW of laser power; even a demonstration rocket would likely need hundreds of kilowatts or more of power.

    10. Re:two things by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Interplanetary Internet perhaps?

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    11. Re:two things by MindKata · · Score: 1

      Non-military? ... How about home made Inertial Confinement Fusion Experiments?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_ fusion

      Only catch is you need a really big shed.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    12. Re:two things by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Sorry to not be joking but I thought a few points might be worth discussing here...!

      The high power lasers like these develop a problem almost immediately with atmosphere effects. This limits their range based upon the frequency and atmosphere response. I know it is a general statement but the range of such devices is limited unless other cute tricks are pulled like phase conjugate reflection controls and pulsed beam timing to literally displace the atmosphere and form a cavity for beam transmission. Yes it all varies with the color of the light.

      The real issues here are quite simple. The technology will be sold out to the Chinese as soon as it is built. This in the name of making it cheaper and on the alter of "free trade." The other problem is the time it allows for decision making just reduced war beyond even the computers response times. Enemy possess laser and can shoot at any time. (Figure this one out for fun!) You possess a laser and are targeting. "Friendly fire" anyone? The problem with such weapons and it is coming no matter what we do is that they by their very existence pose an instant and continual and real threat to others. Of course if we don't have them somebody else will.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    13. Re:two things by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Oh there is a range issue, because the further away from the aperture of the laser, the greater the area of the beam will hit. This is less energy/area, which means the destructive force will be lower.

      Besides, this kind of weapon is of limited use; there is little to no physical force behind it; the destructive energy is heat. Things won't explode like they do in Star Wars and other sci fi/fantasy movies and shows. No, you MIGHT get an explosion if you heat the fuel tanks, but more likely the application would be to heat hydraulic lines until they rupture or simply melt and leak all over, or to shine it through the window of a vehicle to blind, cook, or otherwise injure the driver/pilot/operator, or to use to ignite vegetation one's enemy is hiding behind.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    14. Re:two things by Linker3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      1) You could deliver your PowerPoint presentation in Paris from your office in San Francisco via videophone and STILL point out the interesting bits to the audience.

      2) Later that night you could pick out a cinema in Paris and really piss off the audience by squiggling on the screen.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    15. Re:two things by pla · · Score: 5, Informative

      there is little to no physical force behind it; the destructive energy is heat. Things won't explode like they do in Star Wars and other sci fi/fantasy movies and shows.

      The satellite-based lasers for Star Wars (Reagan's wet dream, not the Movie) primarily worked by kinetic activity.

      A cutting laser doesn't take anywhere near 67kW, but they work fairly slowly (slow enough for an armored target to take countermeasures). Instead, you want to basically vaporize a few nm of the surface, resulting in exactly the sort of explosion you say doesn't happen.

      Search Google for "arc flash"... Though a much more mundane effect, it gives the general idea... Basically, if you vaporize copper bus bar by shorting it out, it produces a pretty impressive "explosion" due to the copper suddenly occupying 67,000 (no connection to the laser from the FP, just a coincidence) times its original volume.

    16. Re:two things by king-manic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes it all varies with the color of the light.

      Alright, the good guys gets the red ones and the bad guys can use the green ones. That way we know when we got killed by friendly or unfriendly fire.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    17. Re:two things by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that someone else thought of that movie...

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    18. Re:two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hummm... you know the Earth is not flat, don't you?

    19. Re:two things by Dos4ever · · Score: 1

      Better yet! It will get "lost" like the 12 billion in cash we sent to Iraq. Who says you can't make big money in a war??

    20. Re:two things by CompMD · · Score: 1

      I did research a couple years ago on how to implement the SSHCL from Dr. Yamamoto's lab into an attack aircraft. It is a pulsed laser, and thus damage is inflicted with an ablative effect; every pulse is an individual impulse on the target, inflicting significant damage in little time. consider someone punching you and then holding their fist against you. now consider someone punching you repeatedly in the same spot. which do you think is going to hurt more? the "pulsed" punching.

    21. Re:two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stated power of the Real Genius laser was ~ 6 MW and the operating time was a few seconds. (This output power is a bit high compared to Knight's claimed extraction cabability of 1 MJ/L over a few seconds (for a lasing volume of a few liters). However...) Let's call that unit a Hollyfeld. So, the Article's laser is about 0.1 Hollyfeld and mentions beam durations of 5, 7, and 15 seconds.

      Therefore, comparing highly fictionalized techno-babble laser to recent, real laser, the techno-babble laser is about ten times niftier.

    22. Re:two things by Molochi · · Score: 1

      I guess I could hunt deer with it.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    23. Re:two things by tardyon · · Score: 1

      1) What's the minimum spot size of the laser at that range? I'm guessing it's the 10cm to 1m range. I don't know about pointing out the interesting bits...

      2) ...but I think the potential for shaping the large spot size should not be ignored. From now on, every movie is a Godzilla movie!

  8. So will this give me bionic eyesight by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    Or just incinerate my brain and explosively detach the back of my skull?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:So will this give me bionic eyesight by Kjella · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know, I think you should try it. I hear you can get a scientific award for experiments like that, though I hear it's named after someone who is controversial in US schools.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:So will this give me bionic eyesight by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      Would that frowned upon someone be General Education?

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    3. Re:So will this give me bionic eyesight by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      Fucking war pig. General Education killed my family and made me a slave.

  9. official name... by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...will be the "Yamamoto Cannon".

    (damn, why couldn't he have been Dr. Yamato)

    1. Re:official name... by ceedee99uk · · Score: 1

      I say Yamamoto,
      You say Yamato,
      Yamamoto,
      Yamato.

      No, lets call the whole thing off...
      :D

  10. For Aiur! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    said SSHCL programme manager Bob Yamamoto Does that mean they are developing a Yamamoto cannon?

    Alright! The admiral has been waiting on this upgrade for a while now...
  11. Yamato by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

    Yamamoto Cannon!!!

    Build a Yamato and put these on it instead of the half-meter rifles the last one had.
  12. Rumsfeld Already Wants One by SRA8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let me guess -- the Pentagon now has everything it needs to proceed with the Death Star?

    1. Re:Rumsfeld Already Wants One by aristotle-dude · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everything is proceeding just as I've foreseen. - The Emperor

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    2. Re:Rumsfeld Already Wants One by User+956 · · Score: 1

      Let me guess -- the Pentagon now has everything it needs to proceed with the Death Star?

      Nah, it'll get stolen by some guy with a chair for a head who wants to make a name for himself.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    3. Re:Rumsfeld Already Wants One by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      He'll probably want to carve his name on the moon's surface so everyone can see it.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    4. Re:Rumsfeld Already Wants One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll probably want to carve his name on the moon's surface so everyone can see it.

      I did say he'd be making a name for himself, right? get it?

    5. Re:Rumsfeld Already Wants One by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      We're finally ready for our war with the USSR 40 years ago.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    6. Re:Rumsfeld Already Wants One by jemecki · · Score: 2, Funny

      FYI, Rumsfeld is out. Robert Gates is the secretary of defense.

    7. Re:Rumsfeld Already Wants One by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      FYI, Rumsfeld is out.

      Yeah, sure. Just like Kissinger.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    8. Re:Rumsfeld Already Wants One by TekPolitik · · Score: 1

      FYI, Rumsfeld is out. Robert Gates is the secretary of defense.

      You know that, and I know that, but does he know that? He still thinks invading Iraq was a pretty good idea and that everything that has happened since has been a delightful success, so delusion doesn't seem to be something he lacks.

    9. Re:Rumsfeld Already Wants One by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Not if some valiant defender of justice gives him a heaping spoonful of justice first!

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  13. Not good enough by volpe · · Score: 4, Funny

    I want five megawatts by mid-May.

    1. Re:Not good enough by Agripa · · Score: 1

      . . . So, what exactly do you want?

    2. Re:Not good enough by Todamont · · Score: 1, Funny

      It needs to be an excimer, excited in the frozen state and coupled to the ground state, duh. Also, we're gonna need a big spinning mirror. Also a lot of popcorn.

      --
      Kharma is like a boomerang. Mine is broken.
    3. Re:Not good enough by mushadv · · Score: 1

      I think it would be in our best interests to aim for jigawatts. 1.21 would be sufficient.

    4. Re:Not good enough by PopeZaphod · · Score: 2, Funny

      There are a lot of decaffeinated brands out there that are just as tasty as the real thing.

      --
      ->
    5. Re:Not good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you want? Who are you? Why are you here?

    6. Re:Not good enough by volpe · · Score: 3, Funny

      I want five megawatts. By mid-may.

    7. Re:Not good enough by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      Check the wikipedia entry for this laser, apparently the population of the upper electronic state has tripled in the last six months.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    8. Re:Not good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will solve your problem and we will solve it by mid-May.

    9. Re:Not good enough by TheDukePatio · · Score: 1
      Great, all they need is a tracking system and a large spinning mirror and they could vaporize a human target from space.

      This is not good!

      If you need me I'll be in my steam tunnel hooking up with Sherry Nugil.

      Now where I'd I put my pajamas?

      For those who don't get the reference (and if you're reading /. and don't get it, you shouldn't be reading /.), the movie in question in Real Genius. Top 5 geek movies of all time.

      --
      To Alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
    10. Re:Not good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you hammer a nine-inch nail through a board with your penis?

      A girl's gotta have her standards...

  14. Almost but not quite! by DaemonBob · · Score: 1

    Dr. Yamamoto almost but not quite Yamato. Ive seen too much anime and played too much Starcraft.

    1. Re:Almost but not quite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no. Not anime. Star Blazers was Japanimation. You kids these days and your anime crap.

    2. Re:Almost but not quite! by DaemonBob · · Score: 1

      In Korea only old people call it Japanimation, besides I'm 30!

      -- "ETERNAL SALVATION OR TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK!" - J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

  15. Too big by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Picture in TFA shows a trailer which you would presumably tow through the streets of Baghdad zapping potential IED's but the opposition in that country have shown that they have the ability to adapt to changed conditions. So the bombs they plant will be in places you can't tow a huge trailer, or outside a place where blowing up the IED will only make you get the blame for killing civilians.

    Too much overhead, not enough payload.

    1. Re:Too big by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "[Bad guys] have shown that they have the ability to adapt to changed conditions."

      IDE's disguised as mirror balls?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Too big by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Although MSDEV has been known blow up unexpectedly, I meant IED's not IDE's.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Too big by s2jcpete · · Score: 1

      How about a smallish blimp?

    4. Re:Too big by cbacba · · Score: 1

      you don't need to haul a big trailer around with a generator capable of 100kw+, you just need a big honkin extension cord.

      Actually, I sorta like the notion of wireless - so nix the cord and replace it by a microwave link pushing 100kw+ - that way you won't have to worry about anyone sneakin' up behind you. It would seem the greenies got left on this one since doing an orbiting microwave powered by solar energy seems to be left out, otherwise why would they need the laser.

      I guess maybe the active armor might work too. Maybe make it outa charcoal so as soon as it's hit - it starts smoking out all sorts of co2 - blocking the ir from penetrating.

    5. Re:Too big by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Picture in TFA shows a trailer which you would presumably tow through the streets of Baghdad zapping potential IED's but the opposition in that country have shown that they have the ability to adapt to changed conditions. So the bombs they plant will be in places you can't tow a huge trailer,

      You say that like it's a bad thing. The reality in military operations is that limiting the options available to the other side is a good thing.
  16. Unveiled? More like UNLEASHED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California.]
    Solid State Heat Capacity Laser : So, Dr. Yamamoto WE MEET AGAIN!
    Dr. Yamamoto : ???????
    SSHCL: Remember Cal Tech?
    Dr. Yamamoto : Fluid dynamics?
    SSHCL: No, Dr. Yamamoto -- lasers. Autonomous lasers.
    Dr Yamamoto : My secret research!
    SSHCL: Soon all the world will know.

    I guess what I'm trying to get at is that in Soviet California, lasers unveil YOU.

  17. Still too big by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2, Funny

    Okay, I'll bite...

    Near the end of the article: 'mobile laser concept'.
    That thing needs a whaleshark to mount it on!

    --
    Still prefer the double-barreled shotgun, or the Bio-Force Gun (BFG) myself...

  18. May cause som collateral damage by viking2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article does not mention that any reflection off whatever the laser is aiming at is many kW as well. A small polished piece of steel would reflect 80% in some random direction, and the beam will go until it reaches something. Only a few milli Watts would be sufficient to damage the eyes of civilian spectators, so a reflection could easily permanently blind everyone in a football stadium of 50000 people.

    1. Re:May cause som collateral damage by Wicko · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would be one hell of a light show.

    2. Re:May cause som collateral damage by nasor · · Score: 1

      The article says that the laser's wavelength is 1 micron. The outer surface of the human eye isn't transparent to that wavelength, so you wouldn't have to worry about eye damage.

    3. Re:May cause som collateral damage by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      That's why interpretations of the Geneva convention suggest that it's a violation to use lasers. Of course, when we get leaders that intentionally play dumb when it suits them, they find ways around it. I've seen reports, I think in a couple AP stories, that the Soviets and Chinese have used lasers to try to interfere with pilots. I should say that haven't confirmed them with other sources.

    4. Re:May cause som collateral damage by viking2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      1 micron is 1000nm, and will penetrate the eyeball just fine. It will not focus fully on the retina. 400-1400nm radiation will penetrate the eye ball and may cause heating of the retina, whereas exposure to laser radiation with wavelengths less than 400 nm and greater than 1400 nm are largely absorbed by the cornea and lens, leading to the development of cataracts or burn injuries.

    5. Re:May cause som collateral damage by repvik · · Score: 1

      Oooooh! I want a couple of these lasers. And one of them disco-ball-thingys!

    6. Re:May cause som collateral damage by LabRat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe not retinal damage, but "not transparent" generally means "will absorb"...so you'd have have massive epithelial and corneal damage instead. Basically like having a LASIK device going randomly berserk on you. Not a happy thought, to say the least. In it's (apparently) intended use for shooting down missiles/mortars in the short-range theater...the ranges involved shouldn't allow for much in the way of intensity of the scatter. Use against nearby ground targets is, of course, might be a different story.

    7. Re:May cause som collateral damage by LabRat · · Score: 1

      Good point...I didn't take the time to research it before your comment, but Nd:YAG retinal injuries are quite common and that laser operates at 1064nm. Either way...internal or external damage to the eye can be quite significant.

    8. Re:May cause som collateral damage by xactuary · · Score: 1
      I was an early pioneer in the field with DiscoBall 1.0 back in 1975.

      --
      Say hello to my little sig.
    9. Re:May cause som collateral damage by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the figure of 80%? I have a text on laser welding that gives a reflectance of 20-30% at 1 m for most metals.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    10. Re:May cause som collateral damage by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Parent should read "1 micrometre". Slashdot munged my post.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    11. Re:May cause som collateral damage by zCyl · · Score: 1

      That's why interpretations of the Geneva convention suggest that it's a violation to use lasers.

      I don't think a laser of this power qualifies as a non-lethal weapon designed only to maim soldiers. If it blows up rockets it will also kill people. To my knowledge the Geneva convention does not prohibit use of lethal lasers with potential non-lethal consequences. For comparison, bullets do not always kill, and can even ricochet, but despite the harm they can cause there is no Geneva convention prohibition against bullets.

      Here is a un.org page describing the relevant text. It states, "Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices."
    12. Re:May cause som collateral damage by raduf · · Score: 1

      If it can touch 50000 people at once, then it's spread over a surface of many thousands of square meters and I doubt it will be seen much less cause any damage.

      Also as it was pointed earlier, reflective armor doesn't do much for lasers. Once it's slightly heated it will loose reflectivity in a positive feedback loop until it's charred. Much better defence is movement, and that's why missles are the worst target for lasers: many are already spinning at high rates for stability, not to mantion flying at mach speeds. The ideea is nice in theory, but in practice where they'd be most needed lasers are most inefficient. It's still gonna take a while.

    13. Re:May cause som collateral damage by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Funny

      When the head is vaporized by a 67 kW laser, it's a safe assumption that there will be some retinal damage. I think cataracts are the least of your worries.

    14. Re:May cause som collateral damage by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      The outer surface of the human eye isn't transparent to that wavelength, so you wouldn't have to worry about eye damage.

      Unless of course you count burning off the outer surface of your eyes as eye damage.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    15. Re:May cause som collateral damage by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Good news: The nuke that was incoming to the Super Bowl was successfully destroyed by our new laser missile defense system.

      Bad news: Due to an errant piece of tinfoil attached to the incoming nuke, no one in the stadium got to watch the second half.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  19. 67kW? by Cynical_Dude · · Score: 2, Funny

    67 kW? Thats nice. Another 933 kW and we can mount it on my Cobra Mark III.

    1. Re:67kW? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but make sure you fit the laser cooler as well. Not much fun having it overheat and essentially turn into a pulse laser.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  20. It will vaporize your head... Unless... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Someone comes up with some amazing, high tech solutions which I don't know, let you reflect light, or maybe bend it. This "laser shield" would have to be small enough to carry, compact, say small enough to fit in a woman's handbag or maybe a gent's toiletry bag.

    Anyway, just a thought, it'll probably take the military billions of dollars and a decade or two to come up with something like that.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by nasor · · Score: 1

      It says that the laser wavelength is 1 micron (into the infrared). Since glass isn't transparent to that wavelength, you can't reflect it with a mirror.

    2. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0

      Someone comes up with some amazing, high tech solutions which I don't know, let you reflect light

      The real fun starts when the cheap mirror becomes an ideal way to use the laser against a third party.

      Never shoot at a mirror - Louis Wu

    3. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It says that the laser wavelength is 1 micron (into the infrared). Since glass isn't transparent to that wavelength, you can't reflect it with a mirror.

      You need to put the reflective surface on the intercept side of the substrate, glass or otherwise. That way, it is the first thing the laser hits. And of course, you'd better make sure that the efficiency is high enough that the laser doesn't manage to ablate the coating. Maybe coatings aren't that good an idea in the first place. Maybe thick, mirror-polished armor that can direct heat away from the surface really quickly is more what you want. Of course, a little dirt on there, you have a localized heat event, and all of a sudden things aren't as reflective as they should be, and zonk, you have a hole right through the armor.

      100 KW for a battlefield laser, eh? Personally, I'm thinking being in front of one of these is a very, very bad idea.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by norton_I · · Score: 1

      (ordinary) glass is transparent at 1 micron. It is also transparent at 1.5 microns -- telecom laser communication travels down glass fibers at the wavelength.

    5. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by evanbd · · Score: 5, Informative

      If your mirror is 99% reflective (which would be very, very good -- and it won't stay that way in a dusty dirty battlefield), you'd still be absorbing 1kW of power. Which might be very easy or very hard to dissipate, depending on the beam diameter and how well the targeting system can keep it on the same piece of armor. And, as soon as your armor starts to heat up more than a little, the reflectivity will drop and it will fail.

      Everyone always thinks mirrors are an easy answer to laser weapons, but it's not really that simple; sure they're worth considering, but they're not obviously a winning strategy.

      A better armor might actually be an ablative -- eg a phenolic or graphite plate that absorbs all the heat at the very surface, and vaporizes into a cloud of gas that then takes the majority of the heating while the armor continues ablating from conducted heat and laser heating that gets through -- meanwhile the targeting system frantically tries to keep the laser on the same spot long enough to punch all the way through, and the tank driver tries to conduct evasive action. Modern ablative technology for rocket engines can take 1kW/cm^2 of heating and last for minutes of service; ablatives derived from such technologies might make very effective armors.

    6. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mirrors? Albatives? Pfft, everyone knows the best defense against lasers are lightsabers.

    7. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or you can use something like a bicycle reflector mirror and that beam is back at you baby.

    8. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "laser swords".

    9. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by ckedge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Talking about dirty - I'd cover the 99% mirror with an ultra thin ablative designed to blow away cleanly on first impact of the laser - which takes the dirt and dust with it and then underneath is the perfect 99% mirror. And my projectile is going to be spinning and moving at mach 2 - the airflow will cool your hairdryer effect nicely. There's also got to be a reason they want 100KW and not 10 KW (10 times your puny 1KW).

      This conversation reminds me of the ABM missile discussions, it costs 10 billion dollars to make an ABM system but only 50,000 for a couple engineers to think hard to make ultra hard to beat countermeasures.

    10. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I have a better idea. Just give me the billions of dollars and a list of all the people you'd have killed with that weapon. I'll take care of it.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    11. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by Derosian · · Score: 1

      So what we really need is a tricky way to redirect light instantly in order to redirect it away from troops. Maybe something not necessarily a physical mirror as such. Or you could just place something on the battlefield to reduce the effectiveness of the laser.

    12. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by Twisted64 · · Score: 1

      Probably wouldn't last long, but if you could just manufacture a 50% reflective surface that wouldn't melt instantly, for a while you'd be giving as good as you got.

      --
      Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
    13. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      phenolic or graphite plate that absorbs all the heat at the very surface, and vaporizes into a cloud of gas"

      Your solution gives passing gas an entirely new meaning. "Wasn't me it was a laser reflecting off my armour!"

    14. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ablatives derived from such technologies might make very effective armors." Ya, after the hadjis start to study and understand physics. Until then no amount of mirrors or ablative armor will prevent people from losing limbs to a quarter ton of explosives hidden below the road.

    15. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      In addition to the ablative, some tumescent material might help retard ablation of your tumescent parts ;-)

    16. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      ... ablatives derived from such technologies might make very effective armors. Yeah, I agree. An ablative coat would absorb ~3 hits from the laser; after that it would fail, but still, that's 3 more cards in your hand.
      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    17. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you can easily get high-reflective mirrors well into the near infrared. Newport.com sells them up to 1.7um or so.

      http://www.newport.com/Ultra-Low-Loss-SuperMirrors /141095/1033/catalog.aspx

    18. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I'd rather use a smoke shield.

      There's already smoke that even blocks IR.

      Then use sonic imaging to get around in the smoke.

      --
    19. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by dramenbejs · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So why not use that 3-mirror orthogonal system, which reflects every beam exactly to it's source?

      The laser will evaporate itself!

    20. Re:It will vaporize your head... Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better still, once you realize you're a target, throw a bunch of smoke into the air, so that a good chunk of the laser energy ends up interacting with a thick cloud of particulates rather than your armour. If the interaction heats the particles (and the air by re-emission and conduction) the refractive index in the beam path will change too. Very handy, if you're a low-speed target.

      As you note, the laser source is a slow-moving target also, but smoke and air-heating don't help much against ballistic shells...

  21. Research Complete: Yamamoto Gun by chaney · · Score: 1

    Oh thank God! I can build Battlecruisers now!

    Sorry, had to be said.

  22. Is there a, uh, stun setting ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put your hands up or I will burn a hole right between your eyes !

    Or just another weapon to kill, Kill, KILL !!

    1. Re:Is there a, uh, stun setting ? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      They need the frickin light saber! This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight, less random than a blaster. An elegant weapon for a more civilized age.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  23. Tough decision... by crankyspice · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do I make a Real Genius joke, or a StarCraft joke?

    --
    geek. lawyer.
    1. Re:Tough decision... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Do I make a Real Genius joke, or a StarCraft joke?

      Real Genius. It's a moral imperative.

    2. Re:Tough decision... by SpaceballsTheUserNam · · Score: 0

      Neither, a Comand & Conquer joke. One of these would be perfect in an Oblisk of Light.

      --
      \.
  24. Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield laser by Jasper__unique_dammi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... the Iraqi insurgents come up with the 100kW mirror!

  25. Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can't say I'm surprised really. The funny thing is that no other nation sees the need to spend anything like the US military budget. I suppose the argument goes that there are people around the world who hate freedom, and since the US is the 'most free' nation on Earth, well, they're prime targets. Problem is that the US isn't the 'most free' nation on Earth - not by a long shot. Scratch that theory. The alternate argument goes that there are a lot of people around the world who hate US foreign police. This argument seems far more sensible. So for US citizens, the correct path would be to change foreign policy, right? Problem is, US citizens don't live in a democracy, so can't affect the foreign policy of their ruling class. Think I'm wrong? Think again. They just voted out the Republicans in an absolute landslide which is largely recognised as being a rejection of Republican foreign policy, but you watch just how much that policy changes, both now AND when they get rid of Emperor Dubya.

    For those who see these laser protecting them from the terrorists' attacks on their homes, I think this is being a bit naive. This laser is to protect military equipment on the battlefield, and the ruling class at home. Just look at how the military didn't lift a finger to stop 9/11, even though they had precise warnings from multiple credible sources. The only thing the US government did was to protect Bin Laden's family after 9/11, flying them back home to safety.

    1. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Skridge · · Score: 1

      this should be mod +5 informative, it's dead nuts on correct.

      --
      -=] M3 Heavy industries - Download Free Game Tools
    2. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The funny thing is that no other nation sees the need to spend anything like the US military budget. The CIA World factbook begs to differ: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank order/2034rank.html

      In fact, 25 nations spend a higher percent of their GDP on the militairy than the US does.

      Just look at how the military didn't lift a finger to stop 9/11, even though they had precise warnings from multiple credible sources.

      Really? Where did you read this? I thought it was a big conspiracy by the tin foil companies.

    3. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have nothing to fear. A 67kW laser would be effectively reflected by shiny, shiny tinfoil. We could make hats out of it to protect ourselves. I don't suppose you have any helpful pointers on how to make and wear them, do you?

    4. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Cadallin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      As another poster noted, this is dead on correct. And why did Bush direct the US government to protect Bin Laden's family? Because the Bushes and the Bin Ladens have been business partners for years.

    5. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In fact, 25 nations spend a higher percent of their GDP on the militairy than the US does.

      This is wrong for a number of reasons.

      Firstly, I didn't mention spending as a percentage of GDP; I was talking about absolute spending.

      Next, comparing spending / GDP with other nations with incredibly low GDPs isn't really giving a clear picture of what's going on. For example, who the hell is Eritrea, the so-called No 1 in military spending in the world? You see, if these countries have a very small GDP, the figures are going to look distorted even if they only buy a couple of grenades.

      Next, the US hides massive amounts of its military spending. The figure they used in that CIA table was the official maintenance cost of the US military. This is the amount that would be required just to keep the military at home. But they're never at home! Things like the wars aren't counted by the US, for some reason. These are 'extra' costs. The trillion dollars that Dubya has asked for to cover the next year in Iraq, well that's not counted. The budget of the CIA, with their military coupes against democratically elected governments and such, well that's not counted. And research on weapons such as this laser. That's not counted either. So you see, if all these things were counted, then the US would be at the top of the list in terms of GDP as well. They're already at the top of the list in absolute terms, which is the point I was originally making.

      Really? Where did you read this? I thought it was a big conspiracy by the tin foil companies.

      That's because you're either in denial, or you'e completely fooled by the propaganda. It's YOU who needs a tin foil hat :)
    6. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 1

      I don't see the relevance here. You're trying to make a point, but I really don't see it applying to me in any way. Try making it again, and this time put your brain into gear before hitting the 'submit' button. Or is that why you submitted as AC?

    7. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't bother him with facts. You'll just distort his prefabricated worldview, and you wouldn't want to do that (just be sure to be completely reasonable when discussing the stupidass things his country's government does, otherwise you might inadvertently expose some hypocrisy.)

      He also forgets that the our military has very limited ability to operate within the territorial United States (e.g. the Posse Comitatus Act.) Oh, I agree that there are many someones, somewhere, who bear the responsibility for not stopping that tragedy, especially after all the billions we've spent on security. However, the finger should be squarely pointed at civilian agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other organizations referred to by various three-letter abbreviations (if it happens again, I think the letters DHS would top the list.) The United States military is not really at fault for what amounts to a failure of domestic intelligence and/or the ability act upon it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by bendodge · · Score: 1

      Clinton was the one who wouldn't take Osama when he was offered. While Bush could've done better, Clinton made the really bad choices.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    9. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 1

      Prefabricated worldview? Pot? Kettle? Black?

      Do you want to actually take issue with something I've stated, or is it all too hard? I have never tried to deny that my own country is up to its eyeballs in the blood of innocents. We slaughtered the Aboriginals when we arrived, and have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with US and British terrorists ever since. No hypocracy on my side of the fence.

      As for the intelligence 'breakdown' as they call it, that lead to the 9/11 attacks materialising ... I think you'll find that these civilian agencies did everything that they could. The problem was that the Bush administration repeatedly ordered them to drop the issue, cease their investigation, and tell no-one about it. This is the intelligence 'breakdown' - it was directed from the top. This has been documented by numerous people, and came out in the 9/11 commission or whatever they called it. Read their report.

    10. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Problem is that the US isn't the 'most free' nation on Earth - not by a long shot.

      Name one, and explain how it's more free (not "a better place to live" or "more friendly to the environment").

      Problem is, US citizens don't live in a democracy, so can't affect the foreign policy of their ruling class. Think I'm wrong? Think again. They just voted out the Republicans in an absolute landslide which is largely recognised as being a rejection of Republican foreign policy, but you watch just how much that policy changes, both now AND when they get rid of Emperor Dubya.

      Psst. We Americans have this thing called "Federalism", which intentionally limits the ability of any one election to dramatically shift the nation's course. 2006 was a mid-term election, meaning that only 4/12 of the democratically-elected national government were subject to voter approval -- after a twelve-year tilt towards our President's party. Federalism was designed to slow dramatic changes, like a sudden shift in policy when twelve years of a party's dominance end.

      2008 is when the American Democratic System will be more flexible, when a full 10/12 of the national government will be up for voter approval, and 6/12 of our government is going to leave office by law. (There's still 1/3 of the national government that is going to be influenced by the current administration after 2008, as the judiciary is not democratically elected, but rather appointed to mostly lifetime terms by the other two branches.)

      If you don't think that common Americans can change public policy -- well, it's black history month, and you should spend some time reading up on things like the Civil Rights movement, the beginning and end of Prohibition, or just the 1994 "Republican Revolution" that started our nation on its current path.

      (We COULD have gone with a directly-elected parliamentary system, but we much rather like having something to moderate our public policy when we have such strong and ardent divisions as to how our country should go. Y'know, 'cause we're democratic.)

    11. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by iPaul · · Score: 1

      While definitions and yard sticks may differ, Holland. The Dutch seem to enjoy a very broad set of freedoms.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    12. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'or whatever they call it'? Somebody's an authoritative source...

    13. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and hindsight is 20/20...

    14. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Gactaculon · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, last time I was there I appreciated their many fine examples of privately owned rifles and handguns.

    15. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey. At least I know about it. I'm an Australian ... and I know about things happening in other people's countries, because I'm interested in the world I live in. The fact that I don't remember exactly what they called the 9/11 commission ( and I do believe I had it right, I was just not 100% sure ), is proof that the media has tried to bury the findings of an extremely importing investigation. But if you want to know exactly what it's called, why don't you go look for yourself? You're not exactly denying anything I'm saying, are you? Is that because you don't know, or because you DO, know ... ie know that I'm correct?

      I find that people are throwing these mindless 1-line responses around as AC a lot recently ... surely the 'coward' part of 'anonymous coward' rings true. A question to all the ACs out there: if you disagree with me enough to respond, why not actually take me up on some of my points? Perhaps it would require a brain and some understanding.

    16. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by iPaul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As I said, your yardstick may differ. For example, being able to own a gun is more important to you than not having your phone calls tapped without warrants, or having a "sneak and peak" search conducted on your house, or being detained indefinitely and without the right to challenge the detention in court (habeas corpus) because of an arbitrary designation that you are an enenmy combatant*. According to your definition, the Swiss are the freest people on Earth, since they get to keep their military weapons (I'm talkin' full fledged machine guns - none of this semi-auto crap) after they leave their service.

      Jose Padilla is US citizen picked up in Chicago.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    17. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eritrea, fucknut, is funding terrorists in Somalia. Did you care to check how much money China's pouring into the military? We're way outclassed by them.

    18. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Name one, and explain how it's more free (not "a better place to live" or "more friendly to the environment").


      Well you're making a very narrow definition of free. Are you saying that a country that bases it's whole existence on unsustainable living and exploiting 3rd world countries is free?

      I already named Venezuela as moving in the right direction, based on 1 definition of 'free'. Want more? Fine. The UK has distinguished itself from both the US and Australia by defending the rights of its citizens illegally captured by the US and imprisoned in Guantanimo Bay. They demanded the return of their citizens, and got it. So this demonstrates one kind of 'freedom' where the UK is ahead of the US ( my country, Australia refuses to ask for its citizens back ).

      Want more examples? Fine. Australia is more 'free', because people can get access to high quality medical care when they need it ( OK, maybe 18 months late, but blame the Howard government for scaling it back ), via our public health system. In comparison, the US is probably the least 'free' of the industrialised world. Access to medical care is an important freedom. Same goes for education, where the US trails behind basically every OECD country.

      How about the freedom of the media? The US is on a fast-track to a fascist state, with the level of merging of the ruling class and the media. There really is only 1 perspective that ever gets any traction in the mainstream media ... and that's not because there is only one perspective. Examples? Every mainstream media outlet backed the illegal invasion of Iraq. When the WOMD claims were found out to be false, every mainstream media outlet conveniently found something else to cover, resulting in the sad situation where 30% of Americans still believe to this day that Iraq had WOMD! You show me a people who don't have access to unbiases reporting ( for example this bullshit with 'embedded journalists' ), and I'll show you a people who aren't free.

      Enough examples for you? Feel free to comment on them!

      If you don't think that common Americans can change public policy -- well, it's black history month, and you should spend some time reading up on things like the Civil Rights movement, the beginning and end of Prohibition

      Sorry. These things were won outside of the official 'democratic' system, and in spite of it. You're talking about sustained grass-roots campaigns that threatened to overthrow the official system, so they had to make concessions. And keep in mind that these days if you turn up to a demo the way people involved in these movements did, you get sprayed with chemical weapons, shocked with tasers, and attacked with other so-called 'non-lethal' weapons, that in fact turn out to be more lethal than things would have been without them.

      Show me one real reform that has been achieved inside the official 'democratic' system please. Your democracy is a joke, and the whole world is saying it. Seriously. You think you can impeach a president over his personal sexual activity ( and hey, I'm no supporter of Clinton ) and tell me you have a democracy? What he did was private business - the state has no business asking him questions about it or impeaching him over it. That's not democracy. That's the opposite. OK. So, Cliaponton's out. Then what? Then people vote the Democrats back in, but the Republicans and judicial system don't like the sound of that, so they order the vote count to cease, and appoint Bush president. That's not democracy. You don't order people to stop counting votes in a democracy.

      Sorry dude. I am incredibly unconvinced that the US is 'free' in any sense of the word. You can think what you like at your own peril.
    19. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You made a good post and many /.rs can't take criticism because they're crybabies. This following news story is the real value of American patriotism and pride in their country. It's all a sham. This is not counting the millions who didn't serve in the military:

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17315490/site/newsweek /

      Enjoy.

    20. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Gactaculon · · Score: 1

      Machine guns are legal to possess in the US, military service or no. Nothing post-1986 though, which is a shame. I've e-slobbered over many a Swiss gun collection over the Internet. Gun rights are far from the only way I measure freedom, but I do think they're enumerated second in the US Constitution for a good reason. Obviously as a general libertarian all the stuff you mention toasts my nuts, but I'm optimistic that things can be worked out as the wave of terror-paranoia seems to be passing. Are there countries "more free" than the US? Probably, but I don't think you'll find any that are better in every aspect. The US is still pretty good, let's hope it stays that way.

    21. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fucknut? Jesus, the ACs are really raising the bar today. Terrorists in Somalia? I heard it was an Islamic independence movement ... which is of course terrorism in US-speak.

      China? Sorry, the US military budgets dwarfs them incredibly. The official US military budget accounts for 50% of the world's military budget. So they are outclassing you, but not in the way that you mean.

    22. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 1

      OK. Firstly, the US doesn't carry out defense research, it carries out offense research.

      Secondly, merely stating that technology that I use comes from US offense research doesn't in any way validate that research. All these technologies could very well emerge through research not linked to killing people.

      Also, try to refine your social skills. At the moment, you suck.

    23. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well you're making a very narrow definition of free...

      Free (adj): Having a legal respect for and protection of personal liberties.

      I don't know what other definition you could be talking about; America has had a pretty constant definition of "free", and while we're not the only English-speaking country, we got our definition from the British Empire, which is where the rest of the English-peaking world got theirs, too.

      I already named Venezuela as moving in the right direction, based on 1 definition of 'free'.

      No, you didn't. Slashdot is not a mailing list; if you want to argue by reference, include a link.

      The UK ... defend[ed] the rights of its citizens ... captured by the US.

      (First rule of international law: there is no such thing as international law.)

      The UK exeriting political defense of its citizens is just being a good government. Good governments and free nations are strongly correlated, but proving one does not prove the other.

      Australia is more 'free', because people can get access to high quality medical care

      By no stretch of our language does "free" mean "cared for." Public health care is a great idea that is good for the people and for the country as a whole, but it is not a freedom. Freedom is the ability to light up a cigarette, not the doctor taking it away from you.

      Every mainstream media outlet backed the illegal invasion of Iraq. When the WOMD claims were found out to be false, every mainstream media outlet conveniently found something else to cover, resulting in the sad situation where 30% of Americans still believe to this day that Iraq had WOMD!

      1: It wasn't illegal. (See above.) The UN never passed a resolution forbidding or condemning the invasion, and the first Iraq war ended with a peace treaty, which Saddam repeatedly violated. The invasion was one of choice, was sold on a lie, and is a distraction from the War on Terror as well as a generally bad idea -- but it's perfectly legal.

      2: Iraq had WMDs. He used them on the Iranians and the Kurds. By the best accounts I've heard, Saddam thought that Iraq had WMDs.

      3: Show me a poll, and let's check for bias. There's no regulation of polling in the United States, so "push polls" are common. Don't trust any number you hear where you don't see the question asked.

      You show me a people who don't have access to [unbiased] reporting, and I'll show you a people who aren't free.

      Every reporter in the world has bias. It's human nature. The important parts are a Choice of Reporter, and an Aknowlodgement of Bias. The worst reporters in the US are those who claim to be unbiased; the best are those who admit their own biases, especially when those biases may conflict with their reporting.

      (And if you think embedded journalism turns the press into propaganda machines for public policy, you haven't actually watched US TV. The only thing putting reporters together with soldiers does is keep the reporter from bashing the soldier for the government's faults.)

      These things were won outside of the official 'democratic' system, and in spite of it. You're talking about sustained grass-roots campaigns that threatened to overthrow the official system, so they had to make concessions.

      What exactly do you think Democracy is for? It's to let the people change their government without killing anybody. The Civil Rights movement succceeded when they changed enough citizen's minds to make "I will support civil rights" an election-winning proposition, and the Civil Rights act was passed. (What didn't come from the CRA came from the courts, which only heard the cases at all because of the Freedom of any American to petition for the redress of grievances.)

      Prohibition was enacted in the 18th Amendment, after a century-long crusade of demonstration,

    24. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Shihar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, us yanks keep developing more weapons and keep a military that can drop a few hundred thousand people in the world fairly quickly... and if we can't drop a few hundred thousand people, we can certainly drop a few hundred thousand pounds of explosives.

      As a damned yank myself, I would love to see us slash our military budget and put it to more useful things. I would LOVE it if Europe would pick up some god damn slack and be able to project a little bit. Utterly ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan, for a moment, no one but the US has shown the ability to actually DO something with their military. Europe didn't come running to stop the 10 year genocide going committed by Serbia on their own back door. None of the old world powers take some fucking responsibility for their old colonies when they descend into genocide (Rwanda, Sudan). Even when nations are begging for some sort of military back up, the EU doesn't step up to send it (Somalia) And sure as shit, no one else was keeping the USSR at bay.

      It is easy to whine about the US and its big ol' mean military. Believe me, the US would be happy to dump the military and let someone else pick up the slack and play worlds police... but no one else ever steps up. The best we have accomplished is we play good cop / bad cop by having the US threaten the stick while the EU offers a carrot.

      Does anyone honestly believe that the EU would step in and risk a few thousand troops to stop a genocide? Of course not. Would the EU jump into the way of China to stop them from invading Taiwan? Hell no. Would anyone but the US at least make a reasonable attempt to keep nukes out of the hands of North Korea and Iran? Fuck no.

      So yes, the Yanks are developing more weapons. Until some other democracy steps up to the plate, the US is going to keep blowing its money building up a military to do work that the whole damn world should be doing.

    25. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 1

      By no stretch of our language does "free" mean "cared for." Public health care is a great idea that is good for the people and for the country as a whole, but it is not a freedom. Freedom is the ability to light up a cigarette, not the doctor taking it away from you.

      Oh that's cute. What you're saying is that you can have a 'free' country where everything required for life is priced beyond the average person's reach, but it's still somehow 'free' because you've matched up some tiny aspect of the state with your dictionary definition of 'free'. If I lived in such a society, I would be 'free' go out and try to earn an higher than average wage to then spend on some bare necessities, but of course, even if I'm successful, that doesn't make things different for the majority of people at or below the average wage, does it. Freedom has to be actually in reach, not some abstract hypothetical freedom that the rich can sit around and ponder while everyone else starves etc.

      1: It wasn't illegal. (See above.) The UN never passed a resolution forbidding or condemning the invasion, and the first Iraq war ended with a peace treaty, which Saddam repeatedly violated. The invasion was one of choice, was sold on a lie, and is a distraction from the War on Terror as well as a generally bad idea -- but it's perfectly legal.

      The UN is not the authority here. The Nuremberg trials established that the type of war the US is fighting in Iraq is an illegal war of aggression. There is simply no basis, in international law or in precedent, for invading a country for pre-emptive 'defense'. And as you've pointed out yourself, the WOMD claims were lies. But worse than that, they were intentional fabrications. In my books, that makes the whole escapade illegal. Even droppping the WOMD excuse and moving to regime change ... that's simply not legal either.

      2: Iraq had WMDs. He used them on the Iranians and the Kurds. By the best accounts I've heard, Saddam thought that Iraq had WMDs.

      Yes and they were handed to him by the US. And they stuck around to see what happened too. The CIA oversaw their testing on the Kurds. That's why no-one wanted to try him for these attrocities ... because the US was up to it's eyeballs in the whole thing. Also keep in mind that the US and and Israel have been caught using WOMD in Iraq and Lebanon. The old 'do as we say, not as we do', eh?

      3: Show me a poll, and let's check for bias. There's no regulation of polling in the United States, so "push polls" are common. Don't trust any number you hear where you don't see the question asked.

      No. The judiciary order the recount to stop. I don't need to show you any polls. That simple act says it all. Even discounting the massive difference between exit polls and the official tally, you simply can't order an end to counting votes, and then in the next breath say that you're in a democracy.

      What exactly do you think Democracy is for? It's to let the people change their government without killing anybody.

      In the US, it's to put a couple of layers of politicans between the people and the power, and prevent people getting too close to direct control. And you say that your democracy lets people effect change without people being killed. What happened to Martin Luther King? Or Malcolm X?

      The Civil Rights movement succceeded when they changed enough citizen's minds to make "I will support civil rights" an election-winning proposition, and the Civil Rights act was passed.

      Some people changed their mind during the campaign, but for the most part, people already agreed with the cause. The movement simply united them and applied pressure to the government to act. This is a good example of how we can change society, but it's wrong to

    26. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by vandan · · Score: 1

      Something else I forgot to say before hitting 'submit' ...

      Thankyou for actually engaging me in an intellectual discussion. Your post was a couple of levels above everything else I've seen today.

    27. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Owning a gun is EQUALLY as important to me as not having my phone calls tapped without warrant.

      And I wouldn't say the swiss are the most free but I think there can be something learned from neutrality.

      speak softly... don't push anyone around... but carry a big stick just in case?

    28. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      At around the 9/11 time period I was working for an Australian 3 letter agency, Australia is obviously not the USA but we are allied in numerous ways that make such definitions a little irrelevant. Speaking in a general sense, politicians are rarely (if ever) the single initiating point behind any tasking. A free hand is regularly given throughout many of the intelligence organisations from top to bottom.

      There are some very smart and free thinking people up on Russell Hill, I know the same is true in the States - I've lived through several investigative commissions, some of which were high profile in their day. It's safe to say that the people running them often have their own political ambitions and largely ignore or present only a limited subset of the information available, the same goes for those on the inside. What you see on TV and in newspapers is little more than a chess game.

      FWIW, I quit and moved to another country because the internal politics and interpretations of the law no longer matched the jobs I was being asked to undertake, pretty ironic in so many ways that I can very probably never tell. Live and learn.

      I guess my point is that it is never as cut and dry as you come across in your post, there is always an agenda. Always. We would never drop anything without exhausting the source first. To be told to do so would be tantamount to initiation of our own internal investigations on why. I first heard the name Osama Bin Laden back in 1991, I never stopped hearing that name. You can bet your arse he was high profile, it is ludicrous to say we would be told to drop investigation of events surrounding him either before or after 9/11.

      Take that as you will.

      By the way, I am not included in the "We" you mention in regard to the slaughter of the countries earlier inhabitants. I'm Australian by birth, I do not appoint blame to myself or anyone currently alive with the actions of previous generations. Terrorist is about as strong a word as hate, I don't think you quite grasp the true meaning of it given that you use it in such a blanket manner - I'm sure you would have given specific names and instances if you meant it any differently.

    29. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      As do a number of Asian countries. I think most everyone that has travelled anywhere in the world for more than a couple of weeks will have sensed a difference at some level when compared to their home country.

      The Dutch certainly do like to tell you how great it is back home :-) (Often without even the need to be asked) I agree with you by the way.

    30. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse "Freedom" with anarchy.
      The trouble with the US democratic system and the Bill of Rights - is that personal 'freedom' can be anarchial - The trick here is to educate the population to be socially responsible and to have social justice. But at what level of freedom can you have that?
      Truly a fine balancing point between democracy and socialism.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    31. Re:Yanks developing more weapons by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "Can't say I'm surprised really. The funny thing is that no other nation sees the need to spend anything like the US military budget. I suppose the argument goes that there are people around the world who hate freedom, and since the US is the 'most free' nation on Earth, well, they're prime targets. Problem is that the US isn't the 'most free' nation on Earth - not by a long shot. Scratch that theory. The alternate argument goes that there are a lot of people around the world who hate US foreign police. This argument seems far more sensible."

      Or other countries' politicians have means to steal people's money that doesn't involve the weapon industry (most of them involving the construction industry). So, they don't need to lead people into wars.

  26. The US is Rotting From Within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they finally figured out how to reverse the growing inequality gap in the US. Build a laser. Nice. Glad to see someone cares.

    Drive through any mid to large sized US city and you see poverty abounds. The US is spending it's way into military greatness, only to later realize that it's the wrong greatness to achieve.

    It IS the economy, STUPID.

    This laser does nothing but burn money that should go to helping poor people scratch their way out of poverty.

    1. Re:The US is Rotting From Within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh yes.. the old redistribute the wealth rant. Gotta love em. Frankly it's every man for himself if you can't survive you don't get to. Why should it take 3 people working to support 1 person who doesn't. Fuck em. I'm all for helpin a brother when he's down.. but when he's down and doing drugs and drinkin he can fuckin die for all I care. He's/she's a leech.

    2. Re:The US is Rotting From Within by Finkle's+The+Mayor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The spirit of Human Compassion is alive and well.

    3. Re:The US is Rotting From Within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wealth re-distribution is exactly what the military industrial complex is. Take money from the middle class and lives from the lower class to support the wealthy whose children will never see a battlefield. This laser is just one more piece of that equation.

    4. Re:The US is Rotting From Within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it will soon burn money with 100-kW of power.

    5. Re:The US is Rotting From Within by vandan · · Score: 1

      My, my, the ACs are out in numbers today!

      Problem with your 'every man for himself' and 'why should I support others' argument is that the people doing most of the bludging aren't the people you're suggesting. The bludgers are the capitalists who own the means of production, and therefore control society, set wages, and generally fuck things up. The so-called welfare recipients are just ordinary people who need some support. For example single mothers need help to raise their children, and so society should step in and help them to do this. Everyone is entitled to an equal start.

      Some simple facts: 98% of the wealth in US -society is owned by less than 1% of the population. Given this, I really so no merit at all to what you're saying. You're trying to say that we should continue down the 'every man for himself' path, so this top 1% gain more, and all because you can't deal with helping out the less fortunate who need some help? The secret is that there is no need to take money from YOU, unless you are in the top 1%. We need MASSIVE redistribution of wealth, but this is in everyone's interest, apart from the top 1%.

      Why should it take 3 working people to support 1 who doesn't work? Well firstly, it doesn't. I don't know where you pulled those figures from, but if you redistribute wealth equitably, these 3 working people will be better off, not worse off. And sure, the 1 non-working person will be better off too. So what? But also, you have to consider WHY they're not working. Could it be that US companies are exporting jobs to China? Could it be that this non-working person is a single parent? You do realise that in the US now, it takes 2 parents working full-time to support a family, and that a single parent working full-time still requires assistance?

      Your last rant about drugs / drinking etc is pretty moronic. You're just trying to push conservative people's buttons, aren't you? There's no actual substance to your 'claim' or whatever it is that happened in that last sentence.

    6. Re:The US is Rotting From Within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, you are one up-tight prick. Yeah, we get it - America sucks (Rest o' World=paradise + happiness + enlightenment). Now have yourself a beer and relax already.

    7. Re:The US is Rotting From Within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem lies with inflation and the federal reserve which has contributed a lot to being poor and ever increasing price on products while working for the same pay you have been before rising rates. Not to mention ever increasing taxes which denies people from collecting too much wealth. Most of these two facts have contributed the most in our current dilemma (our being worldwide, as this phenomenon isn't happening just in the US). Redistribution of wealth is happening, just a lot smaller than before (yes, redistribution of wealth means buying power and employee pay, not the definition from the communist party which considers income tax as a means to redistribute wealth and we all know what disaster that brought).

      Fiat currency has proven not to work ever since the Chinese first invented it, all the way to the Soviet Union and now the US and Europe, it only brings disasterous consequences to the economy for a short benefit. It's a giant scam for the long run till it all comes toppling down, while those who were responsible for it have long died off after enjoying their luxurious life style or ran away to some other country with all the wealth hoarded from the scam.

    8. Re:The US is Rotting From Within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Providing middle class reasearchers with the funds to support their middle class lifestyles, and offering hundreds of thousands of jobs to lower class americans who have been displaced by excavation equipment. FDR would have been proud.

  27. MAH LAZER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    IMMA CHARGIN IT

    1. Re:MAH LAZER by Neitokun · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fool. You forgot to shoop da woop first.

  28. Starcraft, anyone? by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

    I read Yamamoto as Yamoto at first glance.

    --
    This sig is false.
  29. So close by Stephen+Tennant · · Score: 4, Funny

    Soon, America will wield the power to project an annoying red dot into any room in North Korea or Iran, disturbing and agitating ANY and ALL cats, and, if the resident is so foolish as to investigate... his very eyes may be irritated, and possibly damaged, after prolonged exposure!

    --
    I spend most of my time in bed, darling.
    1. Re:So close by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      You laugh, but they could use it to guide a bomb from orbit.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    2. Re:So close by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      As opposed to guiding it via GPS, like we can do right now?

      Note that the GPS-guided method is totally undetectable to the target; you don't have any idea that one is coming towards you, like you would if you noticed a laser or radar beam bouncing off of you, providing terminal guidance to a missile.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  30. WARNING by istartedi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do not stare into laser with remaining co-worker.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  31. Obligatory by MassiveForces · · Score: 1

    Vaporware

  32. Not too big by ConanG · · Score: 1

    The diagrammed version is not for destroying IED's. The article says a much smaller 25kW laser would be useful for destroying them because time is not a factor. The 25kW version just needs to "dwell" on the target a little longer.

    A 100kW version (like in the picture) is where it gets interesting because it might be useful for destroying moving targets on the battlefield (missiles, shells, etc...). A 25kW laser wouldn't be able to acquire a target and destroy it in time.

    1. Re:Not too big by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if all you want to do is remove an enemy sharpshooter from action just focus a 100 mW laser at his scope for a few milliseconds. He won't be doing much shooting after that.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Not too big by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      Nah, not too long ago there was a slashdot article about the ethics of allowing the blind to legally hunt, by having their companion do everything but pull the trigger (ah, what sport!)

    3. Re:Not too big by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Ah, all right. Just use the 100 kW model and volatilize the bastard. You'll have fewer handicapped individuals around when the war is over that way.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Not too big by birge · · Score: 1

      you do realize that for that to work, you'd have to be located within the small field of view of his scope, also known as "the short list of things about to get shot?"

  33. Worse by LordEd · · Score: 4, Funny

    The RIAA is terrified that it will be used to burn DVDs at a range of 500 meters. Drive-by piracy is here: hide your children, lock your doors, hire your lawyers!

    1. Re:Worse by failedlogic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your fine will depend on the car you drive. If you have a 4-door you're only charged $1000 per song. If its a Ferrari, its $2,000 a song.

      Fast CD-R Drives Make For Twice the Piracy: http://slashdot.org/articles/02/12/15/1759227.shtm l?tid=141

  34. Blind Soldiers by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If such weapons make their way onto the battlefield, you're going to end up with a lot of blinded soldiers. Any beam powerful enough to be useful will be capable of blinding everyone near the target with the reflected light. In fact, if you put some kind of corner cube reflective coating on the target, there might be enough light sent back to the source to blind the people firing the beam.

    1. Re:Blind Soldiers by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      If this does make it onto the battlefield, I expect the soldiers will wear goggles (yes, they do something) to efficiently block the wavelength used by this laser. There better not be any civilians around, though.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    2. Re:Blind Soldiers by iPaul · · Score: 1

      I saw something a while ago about a Chinese weapons vendor that has a laser blinding weapon. (Much lower power and it seemed portable by a couple of men).

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    3. Re:Blind Soldiers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never been in an infantry unit (much less the military), or you'd know that weapon-mounted IR targeting lasers are prevelant, and they have the ability to cook your eye in a fraction of a second (from a beam which cannot seen by the naked eye).

      So, yes, such lasers already exist and used (safely) on the battlefield everyday.

    4. Re:Blind Soldiers by KKlaus · · Score: 1

      This doesn't seem to neccassarily be true to me. I don't know what the wavelength constraints are based on what travels well through air without losing a lot of energy, but aside from that there's no reason to pick a wavelength that damages eyes before it melts them. Sure a star-warsesque red or green laser would be bad, as would any of the ultraviolets, but infrared, for instance, would probably be ok, especially with goggles. The real dangers would be localized concentrated reflections, i.e. parabolic armor. But if you had enough computing power, you could shoot a 1% (or .01% whatever) intensity beam first, and look at how it reflected off all the objects around it. Then if all is ok, milliseconds later you fire the real beam.

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
    5. Re:Blind Soldiers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry. I think all of the soldiers will look like this soon...
      http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Stormtrooper_armor

    6. Re:Blind Soldiers by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      This isn't a targeting laser. If you get this beam to your eye, you no longer have a head to have eyes in. Think a puff of plasma.

    7. Re:Blind Soldiers by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about reflected rays hitting other soldiers. Imagine if you had a powerful laser pistol. You could shoot the man in front of you, but the reflected light would also blind you and anyone near you. Unless you were wearing goggles that block that wavelength.

    8. Re:Blind Soldiers by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      If this makes it onto the 'battlefield,' I'm betting that there will not be any soldiers from the country who knew the battlefield was about to get lasered. I doubt you'd see any real interest in the 'laser rifle' with lasers like this available.

      I mean, cmon, that's what planes and ships and satellites and ICBMs are for.

  35. Effective range for what? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Civilians? Steel? Kevlar? The effective range depends on what you want to
    burn a hole through and how long you're willing to wait for it.

    1. Re:Effective range for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the effect that a 67-kilowatt laser, 100 meters away, would have on the following: skin, steel, kevlar, titanium, iron, polycarbonate thermoplastic, sandbags, plywood, pidgeons, or anything else? 50 meters? 10 meters?

    2. Re:Effective range for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but that information is not available to you.

  36. So who does that leave? by fyngyrz · · Score: 0

    Not arguing, really, but it brings up a question: What nation is the most free nation, then?

    Personally, I think the USA was potentially the most free nation, but our government and our courts have never been able to live up to our constitution, and lately, things are getting worse a great deal faster than they were before. I look at our constitution these days and all I see is lost potential.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:So who does that leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed 100%. American Republican | Bush | Gingrich | Fox | Military Industrial Complex.

    2. Re:So who does that leave? by vandan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's very subjective. It's easier to so which nation isn't the most free than it is to say which is...

      Venezuela is looking very promising. They're creating soviet-style workers' councils and other community-based groups ... and this is supported by the state, under Chavez. They're also setting up co-managed factories, where workers elect managers, and can also recall them. This is also a very good step in the right direction, democracy-wise. Read up on the Bolivarian revolution for more info on what direction they're heading in.

      As a general rule, the level of development of capitalism inside a country mirrors the level of attacks on personal freedoms. So the big economic powers require more and more power to control their population. This was shown very well in the recent anti-Dick Cheney demos in Sydney. We broke numerous records for police numbers, roads closed, and probably personal injuries resulting from police violence. So I don't think Australia is exactly leading the way here either. Our government's abandonment of David Hicks in Guantanimo Bay for 5 years is another example ... as Guantanimo Bay is itself an example of where the US is heading.

    3. Re:So who does that leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Venezuela is looking very promising."

      And you're moving there when?

    4. Re:So who does that leave? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      As a general rule, the level of development of capitalism inside a country mirrors the level of attacks on personal freedoms.

      No, sorry, I don't buy this at all; nor do I think that workers being able to recall managers has anything to do with freedom. What it has to do with is control. Freedom means less control over other people's lives, not more.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:So who does that leave? by mikeee · · Score: 1

      This is also a very good step in the right direction, democracy-wise.

      I'd say, democracy-wise, the ruler granting himself the power to rule by decree is a pretty bad sign.

      big economic powers require more and more power to control their population

      Well, Chavez's ongoing implosion of the Venezuelan economy should serve him in good stead, then.

      Seriously, man, anybody who believes Venezula is a shining beacon of progress is a walking trimuph of Marxist ideology over reality.

    6. Re:So who does that leave? by vandan · · Score: 2

      Another AC! Does no-one have courage or valid points of view these days?

      Sure, I've entertained the idea. The problem at the moment is that Venezuela is unstable. It's on the tipping-point of a revolution, but hasn't quite gotten there yet. I also am heavily rooted in my own country - mortgage, job, family, etc. I'm certainly not the kind of person to move countries just because they have some advantages in some areas. They have more freedom of speech, for example. But in Australia, we also have some degree of freedom of speech. If things change, then of course I'll be looking more closely at other countries.

      But I'm also not the kind of person to run away from a country just because I've identified problems. Instead I think it's a valid approach to stick it out here and fight to implement the best elements of Venezuela's society into ours. What's wrong with that approach.

      Lastly, I assume you think the US is the most free country on Earth, though your response was a little on the light side, so it's hard to say. Perhaps you should move to the pinnacle of their freedom, Guantanimo Bay. I think you'll have a great time there, and it will help you to get some perspective. Go on. When are you moving there?

    7. Re:So who does that leave? by vandan · · Score: 1
      Being able to recall managers is about democratising the workplace. You can't claim to have democracy if the decisions about what's produced are made by people who are outside the democratic process, can you?

      Freedom means less control over other people's lives, not more.

      But we're not talking about controlling people's lives, we're talking about controlling production. I never said anything about controlling people's lives. Where did you get that from?
    8. Re:So who does that leave? by vandan · · Score: 1

      I'd say, democracy-wise, the ruler granting himself the power to rule by decree is a pretty bad sign.
      :)

      Well there are a number of things to say to this.

      Firstly, this is exactly what Dubya, Cheney & Gonzales have argued for and achieved in redefining Dubya as the 'commander in chief'.

      Secondly, you have taken this 'rule by decree' thing WAY out of context. Chavez wants to nationalize various industries. His population are completely behind him in this. But he's facing a lot of obstacles from inside the state that are preventing him from progressing in this direction. So he's attempted to side-step things that are getting in his way, so he can continue with nationalizing. I think this is justified, and as most coverage has pointed out, so do a majority of Venuzuelans.

      It's true that, outside of this context, it doesn't sound too good. But alongside the substantial reforms that he's implemented so far, I think it's clear which direction he's taking. We should also point out that he's set a sunset clause ( something Dubya and Cheney have refused to do ). Also, if he actually tried to use this power against the common good, the people simply would not allow it. We're looking at a revolutionary situation in Venezuela, and Chavez's real power doesn't come from the fact that he wins elections by absolute landslides ( though he does ), it comes from the massive grass-roots campaigns that have emerged inside the revolutionary process. Take, for example, the incredible grass-roots campaign to protect Chavez from the CIA-instigated coup. Or didn't you hear about that one? If you're in America, I assume you didn't hear about it.

      Anyway, I would be far more worried about war criminals such as Dubya ( who refuse to sign up to the World Court ) ruling by decree than someone like Chavez, would is really the absolute opposite of Dubya.

      Well, Chavez's ongoing implosion of the Venezuelan economy should serve him in good stead, then.

      Implosion isn't the correct term. It's called nationalisation.

      Seriously, man, anybody who believes Venezula is a shining beacon of progress is a walking trimuph of Marxist ideology over reality.

      That's a pretty stupid statement to make. Not only is it wrong, but you make no attempt to back it up. What's up with people's lack of substance when entering discussions? Is education really that bad in the US now?
    9. Re:So who does that leave? by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Sure. soviet-style workers' councils were everybody has the same ideas, where the leaders chosen are the ones supported by the state. Hey man, I am not a naive american who has never seen such things, and thus, is prone to believe in your fantasy. I am a Brazilian, and in the past was even a member of the Workers Party (PT), So I know exactly how where such things are headed, and basically, you either doesn't understand freedom, or you don't like it. Under your point of view, brainwashing the masses, silencing dissent, using hate and manipulating are signs of a strong democracy. Chavez is a dictator who is trashing his country economy, dividing his society, and who is seeking absolute power. Oil prices are high, but Venezuelas's people have less jobs and depend increasingly on direct transfers from government and social programs, thus being forced to believe that Chavez is their saviour.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    10. Re:So who does that leave? by vandan · · Score: 1
      Care to back any of these claims up? Sure, I've seen them all before in the mainstream media. What makes you say, for example, that Chavez is silencing dissent, or trashing the economy, or seeking absolute power? These are just throw-away claims with no connection to reality.

      You say that Venezualans have less jobs. But this is wrong! Chavez is reversing neo-liberal 'structural adjustment' policies, which is creating jobs. You claim that people are more dependent on government assistance, but this is a very misleading statement. The money from oil is being used to fund social programs, such as education and health. So in this sense, yes, people are more dependent, but this is a good thing, because without these services being provided by the state, they simply would not be provided at all. A more accurate way of describing what's happening is that the welfare state is being increased. This isn't happening to offset some alleged drop in economic activity ... it's happening because more of Venezuala's wealth is now accessible to the government, and they're putting it into social programs. I don't see the problem here.

      thus being forced to believe that Chavez is their saviour.

      This statement gives away the fact that you don't really know what's happening there at all. I even suspect that you're not Brazilian and a former member of the Workers Party as you claim. The people in Venezeula understand where the real power in society lies, and that's not with Chavez. Chavez gets his power from the mass support he enjoys, which will only remain while he continues his reforms, ie his Bolivarian revolution. There is an incredible mistrust of politicans throughout Latin America. The people of Venezeula don't see Chavez as their 'saviour'. This suggests that the people themselves are not participating in the social change they are experiencing. But they understand very well that they are driving change, and that Chavez is simply a friend that they have on the inside. Indeed, one of the reasons the US hasn't had further attempts at assassinating Chavez is that they're frightened from last time that they might trigger an even faster reform ... ie spark a more dramatic revolution. Chavez is an incredibly useful tool, but it's the social movements inside Venezeulan society that hold the real power.
    11. Re:So who does that leave? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      Being able to recall managers is about democratising the workplace.

      No. It isn't. In the normal course of a capitalist business: Person A starts a business, hires person B to manage, and persons C through Z are hired to work at the manager's behest. This entire structure is the creation of person A, using person A's resources, choices, expertise and expertise hired in to support the operation. Persons C through Z have two reasonable choices: They can reject the job they originally accepted and seek their fortunes elsewhere, perhaps in the role of A in some other business, or B, or back into C/Z. Or, they can work within the system designed by person A and continue to receive the agreed-upon remuneration for performing the tasks they were hired to do.

      At no point in that structure is it "democratic" for persons C through Z to "recall" or "select" managers. That role falls naturally to person A. No one else, unless that also, is delegated. If it were delegated to the workers by person A, that would be one thing. When it is taken by the workers, with or without the assistance of a coercive government or paramilitary force, that is ethically and morally bankrupt.

      You can't claim to have democracy if the decisions about what's produced are made by people who are outside the democratic process, can you?

      You have confused the presumption of parity with freedom, and both of them with democracy.

      But we're not talking about controlling people's lives, we're talking about controlling production. I never said anything about controlling people's lives. Where did you get that from?

      You want to take from person A - and B - and give to persons C through Z, that which they never owned, that which they were never offered, and more to the point, that which they never earned. You extol the virtues for persons C through Z, while blithely ignoring what you have taken from A and B.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    12. Re:So who does that leave? by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Having relatives and friends living and/or working in Venezuela qualifies as a source for you? Don't forget, crocodile dundie, that I am a Brazilian, and so, I am a lot closer to the venezuela than you. Instead of supporting communist dictatorships in Latin America, why don't you, rich-fat-first-world-communist-kid, try to be the Chavez in your own country? Go ahead, do the you Boliarian Revolution in Australia, US, whatever! But stop helping fuck latin america! We don't need you here, kid. There are real people here, boy, very far beyond the gates of the Sociology Department of your university. And those people don't need to go suffering again with the misery brought by populist and/or proto-socialistic dictators again. We've had enough of that.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    13. Re:So who does that leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've revealed that you all you can do is spout partisan rubbish, Marcos. You would do well to re-educate in a civilized nation rather than a dump like Brazil, where you exemplify the corrupted education in your country.

      You should also know who are your superiors when it comes to morality before you speak on an American forum to members of first world countries. You can thank these countries for all of your modern trappings of civilization.

      "Sexual exploitation of children continues to be a serious problem in Brazil, "reaching worrisome proportions in some states and involving the participation or complicity of government authorities," states the 2nd Brazilian Report in compliance with the 1996 International Pact on Civil and Political Rights."
      http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/4379/54/

      "The cases that were investigated indicate the existence of serious forms of exploitation and prostitution rings, domestic and international trafficking rings, rings of sexual tourism to attract foreign tourists, and sexual violence and abuse involving adolescents with deficiencies and practiced in circles frequented by members of economic and political elites.

      Politicians, legislators, aldermen, mayors, military police, businessmen, and religious leaders were indicted."
      http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/4379/54/

      So what were you saying? Oh yes...
      Marcos above: "There are real people here, boy, very far beyond the gates of the Sociology Department of your university. And those people don't need to go suffering again with the misery brought by populist and/or proto-socialistic dictators again. We've had enough of that."
      I think it's time you stfu.

    14. Re:So who does that leave? by BIG_E_IN_V_T · · Score: 1

      This may sound good if you're a hopeless peasant. But what if you want to start your own business, and do something more in life? According to Venzuela, the employees would have the same control over the business as the person who took great risks to build that business. So why bother starting one in the first place? Just kick back and enjoy whatever the government hands you. And then the economy starts sliding. And then your contry goes bankrupt like the Soviets did. No thanks. I'd rather have some competition. I'd rather be able to quit and find another job if I don't like the one I have. Or even start my own business if I'm willing to work hard and take risks.

    15. Re:So who does that leave? by mikeee · · Score: 1

      For 'nationalization' read, of course, 'rationing of basic foodstuffs' (there's a nice article about this in that notorious right-wing rag, the New York Times). And democracy without vigorous protection for minority rights rarely ends well.

      Mostly, though, it's just too tedious to work through a chain of no-true-scotsman arguments with the folks who are sure that Socialism is bound to work this time. No doubt in ten years when Chavez is still absolute ruler and has turned Venezuela into an unambigious Zimbabwaean-level disaster, this will all be down the memory hole and you'll be hyping up the next big thing.

  37. We're working on it by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Minion: "Mein Fuehrer, the five megawatt light device will be ready by mid-may,
    the portable five megawatt backpack energy supply too."

    Fuehrer: "Very good Herr Sturmbannfueher. I look forward to deploying this miracle weapon!"

    Minion: "We still have a very small very minor problem to solve, mein Fuehrer."

    Fuehrer: "Ja? Problem? What problem?"

    Minion: "Our Tibet expedition has still failed to produce a Yeti to carry the weapon".

  38. Obligatory R. G. Reference. by Mateorabi · · Score: 1

    All you'd need is a big spinning mirror and you could vaporize a human target from space.

    --
    "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

    1. Re:Obligatory R. G. Reference. by shmlco · · Score: 1

      You forgot the phase-conjugate tracking system.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    2. Re:Obligatory R. G. Reference. by shadow349 · · Score: 1

      A big mirror makes a big beam.

    3. Re:Obligatory R. G. Reference. by n9uxu8 · · Score: 1

      Forget the beam...let's just take a few minutes to think about Jordan...ummmm...Jordan...

  39. Uhhh... any of you guys seen where our AWACS went? by turing_m · · Score: 1

    "In it's (apparently) intended use for shooting down missiles/mortars in the short-range theater...the ranges involved shouldn't allow for much in the way of intensity of the scatter."

    I wonder what the possibilities for friendly fire are when using this as an anti-mortar device while maintaining air superiority?

    --
    If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  40. From a country.. by DogDude · · Score: 1

    I'm also not surprised... remember... the US is a violent, violent, brutal country. It was founded on the genocide of an entire continent of cultures less than 300 years ago, and has been actively killing foreign people all over the world constantly since WW2. The US: we can't make a TV worth a damn, but we can sure as hell can kill you!

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:From a country.. by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Compared to who, Europe? The place which has been nearly one giant war zone for centuries with "peace" being "the period until the next continent wide war." Thats not even counting that it was the Europeans who did most of the genocide in the whole world, just look at Africa and South America.

      So by your own logic the US is a lot better than most of the western world.

    2. Re:From a country.. by band-aid-brand · · Score: 1

      Sure, the United States is brutal. Just keep telling yourself that when some genocidal maniac comes to power right across your border and you have to try to fend them off with your peaceful thoughts and good intentions. Care Bear Stare everyone!

    3. Re:From a country.. by vandan · · Score: 1

      You mean like the boogey man? I hear there are lot of them lining up on the borders, just waiting the invade the land of the free and scare the bejesus out of you. Don't worry ... just pull the sheets over your head.

    4. Re:From a country.. by king-manic · · Score: 1

      The US inteferes very rarely in "genocide". mostly it's the UN that sends troops. The US isn't out there to prevent genocide or dethrone dictators. It's fairly well known for supporting dicators (Sadam up until the first iraq war, saudi arabias rulign princes, egypt, most of south america, some of the african dictators). As for genocide. The Us is fairly genocide neutral. It neither goes out of it's way to prevent it in the world nor does it go out of it's way to fund it.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    5. Re:From a country.. by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Probably he means like Stalin or Pol Pot.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    6. Re:From a country.. by vandan · · Score: 1

      The problem is that neither Stalin nor Pol Pot ever dreamt of attacking the US. Both were best friends with the US. Pol Pot, for example, enjoyed tremendous support from the US for years. The US thinking was the classic "enemy of my enemy" thing, and they were fighting Vietnam, so it was a very cosy relationship. If you want to analyse even further the incredible catastrophe that happened in Cambodia, you can talk about how the US, when they realised they were in dire trouble in Vietnam, decided to spread the war to Cambodia ( as they now want to spread the war to Iran ). They carpet bombed a civilian, peasant population for 6 months in Cambodia before even admitting to their own citizens back in the US that they were doing so. It was this campaign that lead to the rise of Pol Pot, who they then supported with weapons and such. Did you know any of this? You didn't, did you? Shame on your for talking about things you are clearly completely ignorant of.

      As for Stalin, same thing really. He was an ally during WWII. Various congressmen said he was a 'great leader', a 'very trustworth soul' and other things. No I don't have a link. It's time for you to do some of your own research if you want proof of these quotes. And as with Pol Pot, Stalin never threatened the US.

      I think I was right the first time: you guys are really scared of the boogey man. He goes by many names. But he's still the boogey man.

    7. Re:From a country.. by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      As for Stalin, same thing really. He was an ally during WWII. Various congressmen said he was a 'great leader', a 'very trustworth soul' and other things. No I don't have a link. It's time for you to do some of your own research if you want proof of these quotes. And as with Pol Pot, Stalin never threatened the US.

      He was also an ally of Hitler in the beginning. Also, your argument is worse than pathetic since Stalin didn't somehow cease to exist after WW2, just because you are something at one point doesn't mean you are that forever. I mean wtf, do you expect congressman to insult an ally who is proving a large help to the war effort? He could have been eating babies and they'd still have said he was a great man. Hell, his own people thought he was a great man due to the massive amount of propaganda that he used. I can only assume that your "history" books glossed over things like the Berlin Blockade/Airlift or the Korean War.

    8. Re:From a country.. by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Staling was an ally of the US "during" the WWII. Soon after the WWII, they become a real treat to the occidental word (and of course, for his own people). About Cambodja, either you are lying, or you need to study more. For sure, the american bombings increased popular support of the peasants for the Khmer Rouge, but the Khmer Rouge itself was never supported by the US, but by the Chinese and North Vietnam. Actually the US supported the Generalo Lon Nol's government, that had deposed Sihanouk, that would later support the Khmer Rouge, that in turn would eliminate Lon Nol. North Vietnam and China supported Pol Pot, not the US, sir. The funny thing more than 30 years later is that Kissinger was right. After Vietnam fell, all of Indochina fell together to communism. Living standards dropped as usual, millions were executed. And today, southeast asian states who didn' become communist have orders of magnitude better living standards than those who choose the route to communism. Funny thing is that the anti-protesters at that time, always failed to condemn the soviet and chinese support of the north Vietnamese, just like you today pretend that IRAN is not behind the terrorist attacks in Iraq. I think the Iraq invasion was a mistake, but the Iraq people could be a lot better, and the US troops could have been gone home for a long time, if it weren't for the direct participation of Iran and Siria national in the insurgency. The massive participation of Iraqis on the last election show that they are relieved of being freed from Saddam. If it weren't for people like you, the foreign terrorists and former Saddam suporters in Iraq, the US troops would have left the country by now.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    9. Re:From a country.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia the leading party is called the Liberal party. They actually stand for conservatism, so stfu. In case the point went over your head, I will not expand on the meaning of those words. They should be apparent, if you have any intelligence. It's already apparent that you view history inaccurately.

    10. Re:From a country.. by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Thats not even counting that it was the Europeans who did most of the genocide in the whole world, just look at Africa and South America.

      Africa and South America are both still populated with many millions of native people. When was the last time that you've seen a native person in the continental US? We've got the few that we didn't slaughter locked into "reservations". The US genocide of the native people here was one of the most complete, effective genocides in recent history. Heck, the US was more effective than even Hitler!

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    11. Re:From a country.. by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Africa and South America are both still populated with many millions of native people.

      The US has a few million Native Americans (well and Inuit and so on) as well, your point? Most indigenous people that could be found were either killed or made effectively slaves.

      When was the last time that you've seen a native person in the continental US?

      I'm sure I've seen a few, I really don't pay much attention to the race or ethnicity of those I see.

      We've got the few that we didn't slaughter locked into "reservations".

      They're perfectly free to live wherever they want, granted then they'd need to adapt to outside culture.

      The US genocide of the native people here was one of the most complete, effective genocides in recent history.

      Recent history? The Native American population has been increasing for the last 50 years and has been more of less stable for the 50 to 100 years before then.

      Heck, the US was more effective than even Hitler!

      No, that'd be the Europeans and even they they didn't even get close to Hitler. There is a difference between killing a million people over 3 centuries and over 1 year. I mean in Mexico alone between 1521 and 1581 possibly 16 million (out of a total of 18 million) were killed by European influence. If Hitler was in charge of wiping out Natives they'd have all been dead long before the American Revolution.

    12. Re:From a country.. by vandan · · Score: 1

      He was also an ally of Hitler in the beginning.

      As was the US. They only entered the war on the side of the British after years of hedging their bets and procrastinating.

      Also, your argument is worse than pathetic since Stalin didn't somehow cease to exist after WW2

      WTF? So my argument only holds up if Stalin disappeared after WWII? Hold off on the drugs a little.

      I mean wtf, do you expect congressman to insult an ally who is proving a large help to the war effort?

      Well. Firstly, no, I don't expect them to, because I'm far too cynical for that. But secondly, you should take a stand and stick with it. You can't flop this way and that because it suits your purposes. That's called hypocracy.

      He could have been eating babies and they'd still have said he was a great man.

      Sure. The US political establishment is fucked. No argument from me here.

      Hell, his own people thought he was a great man due to the massive amount of propaganda that he used.

      Sure. Same as, say, in the US now. Well, not quite the same. No amount of propaganda can turn around public opinion on Dubya now. But sure, they had massive progaganda, as you do.

      I can only assume that your "history" books glossed over things like the Berlin Blockade/Airlift or the Korean War.

      Why?
    13. Re:From a country.. by vandan · · Score: 1

      About Cambodja, either you are lying, or you need to study more ... North Vietnam and China supported Pol Pot, not the US, sir.

      Actually, you're the one full of bullshit here. The US not only suspected that their bombing of Cambodia would push Pol Pot to the top, but they actually expressed a desire for this in intelligence documents. The UN was falling over itself to accommodate him. Even decades later, they still hold a soft spot for the Khmer Rouge, so that activists such as John Pilger can say:

      I watched Khmer Rouge officials welcomed back to Phnom Penh by U.N. officials who went to astonishing lengths not to offend them. Khieu Samphan, Pol Pot's henchman who once said that the only mistake the Khmer Rouge had made was not killing enough people, took the salute of U.S. and other U.N. troops as a guest of honor on United Nations Day in Phnom Penh.

      It's true that at certain points, the North Vietnamese also supported Pol Pot. But that in no way means that the US didn't support him. They protected him politically ( the legacy of which we see in the above quote ), and also gave him weapons:
      http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US _PolPot.html
      http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/hermansept97.htm
      http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pol potmontclarion0498.html

      This is certainly no secret ...

      After Vietnam fell, all of Indochina fell together to communism. Living standards dropped as usual, millions were executed.

      Well, firstly, Indochina didn't fall to communism. Parts of it fell to state capitalism. And yes, under this system, living standards drop 'as usual'. The state is far better at oppressing workers than individual capitalists.

      And today, southeast asian states who didn' become communist have orders of magnitude better living standards than those who choose the route to communism.

      Well, as I already pointed out, they didn't turn to communism, but state capitalism. If they looked like they were evolving to communism, they would get the US up their arse as fast as Russia did in 1918, or Vietnam did many years later.

      Funny thing is that the anti-protesters at that time, always failed to condemn the soviet and chinese support of the north Vietnamese,

      That's because the biggest villain was the US. Sure, there were lesser villains, but you have to concentrate on the biggest one, to ease the suffering of the innocent people who were under attack from both the US, and their own governments. But the US was always leading the way in attacks on innocent people, so that's what people rallied around.

      just like you today pretend that IRAN is not behind the terrorist attacks in Iraq.

      Don't be fucking absurd! It was the US who launched the terrorist attacks on Iraq, NOT Iran. Iran has always SUPPORTED Iraq in this war.

      but the Iraq people could be a lot better, and the US troops could have been gone home for a long time, if it weren't for the direct participation of Iran and Siria national in the insurgency

      What Iran and others do have nothing to do with the length of the occupation, just as they had nothing to do with the invasion. The US and their coalition of the killing intend to stay in Iraq as long as politically and economically possible - no shorter. This was always their plan, and they are executing it perfectly.

      The massive participation of Iraqis on the last election show that they are relieved of bei

    14. Re:From a country.. by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      As was the US. They only entered the war on the side of the British after years of hedging their bets and procrastinating.

      Not really, the US population was rather isolationist during the time period as they also were during WW1. I mean why would an American citizen want to die for a conflict that is thousands of miles away and in no way directly affecting them? Note that Hitler's atrocities were not known about at the time. Nonetheless the US government was providing assistance to the allies (essentially free weapons and supplies) despite the continual problems this caused for relations with the axis.

      Sure. Same as, say, in the US now. Well, not quite the same. No amount of propaganda can turn around public opinion on Dubya now. But sure, they had massive progaganda, as you do.

      There were people who's families were taken away by Stalin to their death who still believed in their great leader, to them it must be that Stalin just doesn't know about those awful things that are happening. IF you even think the US has a smidge of the soviet propaganda level then I'm not going to bother replying anymore as you're just another crazy delusional person on whom rational argument is a waste.

      WTF? So my argument only holds up if Stalin disappeared after WWII? Hold off on the drugs a little.

      Yes, as you only mention him during WW2 your argument only applies if he didn't exist after the war due to how different things were during and after the war. Again if you can't understand why things are very different during a continent wide war and after it then there isn't much more I can say.

      Well. Firstly, no, I don't expect them to, because I'm far too cynical for that. But secondly, you should take a stand and stick with it. You can't flop this way and that because it suits your purposes. That's called hypocracy.

      If being officially friendly to someone means that a million more of your own people don't have to die then its downright evil to not do so. Also hindsight is 20/20 and soviet propaganda was very good both inside and outside the ussr, Stalin didn't do his land grabs and show his real aggression till after the war.

      Why?

      They both illustrate the lack of good relations between the soviets and the US after the war.

    15. Re:From a country.. by lonesome+phreak · · Score: 1

      I live in Oklahoma and I see "Native Americans" all the time. They even have their own federally-regulated land they can do pretty much whatever with. Now, I'm not saying my government should have done what they did...but there really are nearly 3 million of them left, of several different tribes.

      --
      Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
    16. Re:From a country.. by vandan · · Score: 1

      I mean why would an American citizen want to die for a conflict that is thousands of miles away and in no way directly affecting them?

      Oh, there are reasons. They are collectively called Imperialism. In the end that's why the US did get involved. Take the occupation of Iraq for a current example.

      Note that Hitler's atrocities were not known about at the time.

      Exactly. It wasn't a secret to the ruling class, but they hadn't as yet decided which side to join, so Hitler's atrocities were being kept out of the mainstream media, to leave the US' options open.

      Nonetheless the US government was providing assistance to the allies (essentially free weapons and supplies) despite the continual problems this caused for relations with the axis

      Sure. But they did exactly the same for Hitler. The US has a long history of providing weapons and other support to both sides in a conflict.

      IF you even think the US has a smidge of the soviet propaganda level then I'm not going to bother replying anymore as you're just another crazy delusional person on whom rational argument is a waste.

      You need to reconsider this stance. Propaganda is at an all-time high in the US. It's a different kind to the old-world style. It's a lot more subtle, and yet more powerful at the same time. Read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent for a detailed analysis of the use of propaganda and one-sidedness western societies. It's very interesting.

      Yes, as you only mention him during WW2 your argument only applies if he didn't exist after the war due to how different things were during and after the war. Again if you can't understand why things are very different during a continent wide war and after it then there isn't much more I can say

      I see. That's the problem then. People like you are willing to compromise their position and support people who they 'claim' to be 'bad people' simply because they need help from these bad people, and then when things are going better, they think they can turn around and show their true colours. It doesn't work like that. Sure, it's done all the time, and yes I understand exactly why. All I'm saying is that it's not a defensible position, and that I despise people - and countries - who act like this.

      If being officially friendly to someone means that a million more of your own people don't have to die then its downright evil to not do so.

      Oh bullshit. There was nothing altruistic about the US' involvement in the 2nd world war. As I've already pointed out, the US hedged their bets until the last minute, and when they finally decided ( incorrectly, according to their own goals at the time ) which side to join, they turned on the propaganda machine and let people know how bad Hitler was. And sure Hitler was bad. But don't try to argue that that's the reason why the US decided to enter the war or fight against Germany. And don't tell me that the US ruling class gives a damn about millions of dead people, whether they're dead Germans, Americans or Iraqis. The only difference is that dead Americans create political problems at home, so should be avoided if possible.

      Also hindsight is 20/20

      Oh, the "We didn't know" defense. It's OK for civilians to throw this one out occasionally, but not the ruling class. They knew. They spent a LOT of money making sure they knew.
    17. Re:From a country.. by Rakishi · · Score: 1
      Wait, you're talking about the US hedging its bet while the whole WW2 was due to Europe desperatly trying to avoid was by giving into Hitler's every demand? I mean are you complaining about the US or human nature?

      Oh, there are reasons. They are collectively called Imperialism. In the end that's why the US did get involved. Take the occupation of Iraq for a current example. Huh? wtf are you smoking, the US gained maybe 2 pieces of land after WW2 that weren't returned or made self-governing within a decade. Saying we entered for imperialism is likely the stupidest explanation I've heard, self preservation and self-righteous leaders (the US embargoed Japan and led to Pearl Harbor, war could have been avoided). Have you even seen the cost of WW2 in terms both the short and long term in people and money, a good portion of our national deficit right now is due to WW2.

      Exactly. It wasn't a secret to the ruling class, but they hadn't as yet decided which side to join, so Hitler's atrocities were being kept out of the mainstream media, to leave the US' options open. I doubt it, the "ruling class" also honestly taught Stalin wasn't such a bad guy and before the war Hitler had hidden what he was doing very well.

      Sure. But they did exactly the same for Hitler. The US has a long history of providing weapons and other support to both sides in a conflict.

      Well then please provide the references, asfaik the US almost exclusively aided the allies by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
      Providing aid to the axis would have been impractical likely due to the lack of shipping lanes that didn't go through ally territory.

      You need to reconsider this stance. Propaganda is at an all-time high in the US. It's a different kind to the old-world style. It's a lot more subtle, and yet more powerful at the same time. Read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent for a detailed analysis of the use of propaganda and one-sidedness western societies. It's very interesting. Like I said, I disagree that its anywhere close to what the soviets did or that its all that much worse than what the US did during the cold war.

      I see. That's the problem then. People like you are willing to compromise their position and support people who they 'claim' to be 'bad people' simply because they need help from these bad people, and then when things are going better, they think they can turn around and show their true colours. It doesn't work like that. Sure, it's done all the time, and yes I understand exactly why. All I'm saying is that it's not a defensible position, and that I despise people - and countries - who act like this. In the real world those who don't compromise, lie and backstab their way are usually found dead in a gutter when someone who does gets annoyed at them. There is no such thing as a "good" nation or, with rare exceptions, a "good person" so in the end it's all about choosing the lesser of many evils.

      And sure Hitler was bad. But don't try to argue that that's the reason why the US decided to enter the war or fight against Germany.

      Likely it was, having Hitler control all of Europe did not appeal to US leaders although the people didn't seem to mind.

      The only difference is that dead Americans create political problems at home, so should be avoided if possible. So why did the US enter WW2 at all, Pearl Harbor could have been easily avoided had the US not embargoed Japan (which the US knew would force Japan's hand). Likewise the result was millions of dead Americans so your logic appears to be fault.

      Oh, the "We didn't know" defense. It's OK for civilians to throw this one out occasionally, but not the ruling class. They knew. They spent a LOT of money making sure they knew. Well then please provide a reference that says so and WW2 propaganda that notes Hitler's atrocities.
    18. Re:From a country.. by vandan · · Score: 1

      Wait, you're talking about the US hedging its bet while the whole WW2 was due to Europe desperatly trying to avoid was by giving into Hitler's every demand? I mean are you complaining about the US or human nature?

      No. I'm saying that the US hedged it's bets, and tried to choose the winning side in the conflict, regardless of the ethical consequences. In particular, there were key merchant bankers who were in daily contact with the Nazis. Duby'a grandfather was convicted of money laundering millions for the Nazis. The consensus was that Hitler was the one to back, but this was politically very dangerous. Perl Harbour forced their hand.

      Huh? wtf are you smoking, the US gained maybe 2 pieces of land after WW2 that weren't returned or made self-governing within a decade.

      It's not all about gaining land. It's well known that the US emerged as the only real superpower after WWII, and this, combined with the fact that they entered the war so late and therefore didn't have their country & economy in ruins, pushed them to their current dominant position today. They forged deep alliances which remain to this day. They have the UN by the balls, with veto power in the security council. They did incredibly well for themselves out of WWII, especially considering they hardly did any fighting compared to everyone else.

      Well then please provide the references ( referring to supporting Hitler )

      http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/ ... and this isn't the exception. Many leading members of the ruling class are implicated as the Bush dynasty.

      In the real world those who don't compromise, lie and backstab their way are usually found dead in a gutter when someone who does gets annoyed at them. There is no such thing as a "good" nation or, with rare exceptions, a "good person" so in the end it's all about choosing the lesser of many evils.

      I agree that history proves you right here, but the point is that one person or one country can't make a difference on their own. You need international solidarity, to break the cycle of violence, corruption and tyranny.

      So why did the US enter WW2 at all

      The UK was applying a LOT of pressure on the US already. After Perl Harbour, they didn't really have much choice but to get involved, and it was politically out of the question to support Hitler after Perl Harbour. So they got involved. Finally.

      Pearl Harbor could have been easily avoided had the US not embargoed Japan

      Pressure from the UK on this one.

      Likewise the result was millions of dead Americans so your logic appears to be fault.

      My logic only appears at fault if you assume that the US ruling class care about their own civilians. They don't. I don't have a particular example from that time handy, but if you look at how they viewed other country's civilians ( Japanese for example ... how many millions did they kill / irradiate ) you'll get an idea. Or for a current example, look at how they handled New Orleans. Instead of sending in lots of soldiers to actually do something about evacuating people, they sent in lots of soldiers with 'shoot to kill' orders, to protect private property. It goes without saying that if people had been evacuated, they wouldn't be around to loot ... and also they wouldn't have had the *need* to loot.
  41. Re:Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield la by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Insightful how? Making mirrors that can withstand 100+kW of energy you can't exactly go down to your hardware store. Insurgents have nowhere near the facilities or technology to create anything close to withstanding 100kW.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  42. Here, kitty, kitty.... by surfcow · · Score: 2, Funny

    Look at the dot! Chase the dot! Chase the ...

    Uh-oh.

    1. Re:Here, kitty, kitty.... by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      thanks! that works well on obnoxious Kzinti

  43. Need: Sharks, duct tape by Graymalkin · · Score: 4, Informative

    The fact the SSHCL is able to get 67kW out of a solid state system is very impressive. Most solid state lasers of this sort have been stuck below 10kW and are only about 1% efficient, a 1kW laser needs 1MW of input power 99% of which needs to be shed by a cooling system. Solid state lasers have a definite advantage over chemical ones like the THEL and ABL because their "ammunition" supply is essentially only limited by the amount of electricity they've got available. Chemical lasers consumer reactants in the lasing process and have a finite number of shots before those reactants are exhausted. Those reactants take up a lot of space as well, Isreal's THEL system requires four semi trailers worth of equipment to shoot down small katyusha rockets and mortar rounds.

    The Air Force has a real hard on for laser systems. Though it doesn't say specifically in the article it appears this lab was awarded the AFRL's contract to produce a solid state equivalent to the ATL system being developed largely by Boeing. The ATL is a smaller cousin of the ABL weighing in at about 70kW. It's an order of magnitude lower power than the roughly 1MW ABL but is also quite a bit smaller. The ABL requires a 747, the ATL is being developed to be mounted on a C-130 or V-22 Osprey. A solid state ATL would be far more useful for the Air Force than a chemical one. A solid state laser system on an aircraft could be powered by generators hooked to the engines and fired an indefinite number of times in flight.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    1. Re:Need: Sharks, duct tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A solid state ATL would be far more useful for the Air Force than a chemical one. A solid state laser system on an aircraft could be powered by generators hooked to the engines and fired an indefinite number of times in flight.

      And it would put off an infrared signature the size of Texas. That is, due to the laser only being 1% efficient. Which, on non-combat aircraft, may not be a big deal.

    2. Re:Need: Sharks, duct tape by CompMD · · Score: 1

      I did a study on the SSHCL two years ago and had a little bit of help from Dr. Yamamoto. Specifically, I determined the viability of an airborne SSHCL-based weapons platform and wrote a paper on it. This included new aircraft design, avionics, power systems, adaptive optics, and system integration. Boeing PhantomWorks has a solid oxide fuel cell in the works that is 75% efficient and runs on the same fuel the engines burn. The SOFCs would charge ultracapacitor banks which would in turn power the laser. The laser peak power output would be about 100kW. The ultracapacitor systems have integrated liquid cooling, and the laser system would be cooled by bypass air (its cold way up high). Building aerial refueling capabilities into the aircraft gave you range and firepower only limited by pilot and gunner fatigue.

      For an airplane, generators cannot provide anywhere near the amount of power necessary to drive a directed energy weapon. A few quick efficiency calculations will show this. The Air Force has their "hard on" for laser weapon systems because they are seeing the economy in reusable weapons. Why spend $250,000 on a missile when you can accomplish your goal with a couple gallons of JP8 fuel converted into electricity? Need to stop a convoy? Why bomb it when all you need is to blow out the wheels of the trucks at the front and back? The precision of a laser weapon is simply unmatched. Additionally, the per shot and per kill costs are extremely low, and the risk of collateral damage is significantly reduced.

      For aircraft defense, current technology (utilizing the SSHCL) will allow for the detection, tracking, engagement, and destruction of MANPADS in just under 10 seconds for an aircraft flying at 10,000 feet. This has a very complex calculation behind it, you're just going to have to take my word for it.

      Chemical lasers are not the answer for an airplane because of the weight. Attack and fighter aircraft simply cannot handle the weight. An interesting note is that the F-35 is designed to accept a solid state heat capacity laser when one is in production. The attack aircraft I was a designer for easily incorporated the laser.

      The SSHCL project has been very successful. I believed in it two years ago when they were just creeping up around 10kW, and I continue to believe in the program today.

      Congratulations, Dr. Yamamoto, well done.

  44. Prism Tanks anyone? by Afecks · · Score: 2, Funny

    First thing that popped into my head was the sound of a Prism Tank blast followed by AAAHHHHH!

  45. Mirrored UAV's reflect laser onto target by hypertor · · Score: 1

    Could a laser not burn or melt a hole down to an iranian nuclear site? I guess if that was the case the oil companies would already.. Ok maybe not such a good mix, oil and lasser's might just rock the underworld..

  46. Unfortunately... by jd · · Score: 1

    ...the new laser pointers blew so many wholes in the whiteboard that the diagrams can no longer be read.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  47. no no no by way2trivial · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    originality is "won'tsomeonepleasepleasethinkofthesharks"

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  48. More importantly by iPaul · · Score: 1

    When can I pick one up at my local sporting goods store? I need it for "deer hunting." (And the simulatenous cooking of the entire animal).

    --
    Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    1. Re:More importantly by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Hey, just what you see, pal -- Alamo Guns Sales Clerk

  49. 26KW!??!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My teacher has a laser pointer for the white board more powerful that that!

  50. Ultimate Laser Pointer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That ought to liven up the PowerPoint presentations a bit.

  51. Re:Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield la by master_twig · · Score: 1

    They don't create. They either buy, steal or have donated to them.

  52. Don't leave your goggles on the bench by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    That's near infrared (only ~30% outside the visible range), and everyone working with lasers in that range wears goggles because they need them.

  53. Nerd pack upgrade! by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Time to update your laser pointers! The old ones only melt plastic, light matches and pop balloons.

    (Have to be ready for when the sharks attack--and they will!)
    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  54. Q-Switched LASER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely a sharp short burst of high power from a Q-Switched LASER is enough to blast stuff with?
    Any reason why the military need lasers with such a high average power? What advantage could these offer, seriously.

    1. Re:Q-Switched LASER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have the power of the Q, why bother with lasers?

  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. Re:Uhhh... any of you guys seen where our AWACS we by LabRat · · Score: 1

    I'd guess non-zero, but very small via referencing the "Big Sky Theory". After all, the concentrated beam doesn't travel any further than the target if it is aimed properly. It's only about an inch wide...so even on a miss only an inch column along a single vector is subject to collateral damage..there's a whole lot of places for planes to *not* be by comparison to being in the way of the beam. But yeah, point taken..it's something that would have to be considered in the targeting/tracking system.

  57. Interesting as a battlefield weapon by billcopc · · Score: 1

    You know what would be interesting as a battlefield weapon ? Something that destroys the user upon firing!

    Why the fuck do we need a death ray ? Have we already reached the point where we have nothing better to do than destroy everything in sight ? How about a laser that has practical uses in construction (etching/molding/carving etc) or high-tech, or anything that actually adds value to the world rather than vaporizing it.

    Laser weapons are for Star Wars, all I ever asked for was pussy and beer!

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:Interesting as a battlefield weapon by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Vaporizing certain people does add value to the world.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Interesting as a battlefield weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what would be interesting as a battlefield weapon? Something that destroys the user upon firing!
      I think your interesting weapons are already in use on the battlefield. Suicide vests and car bombs both meet that criteria.
  58. Re:Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield la by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    Irrelevant.
    No mirror reflects 100% of the incoming light. The 3%* or so that remains will make short work of the reflective surface, and then the laser will get back to work.

    The other 97% that is reflected couldn't be meaningfully redirected before the reflective surface is burned through.

    *Ever been in a hall of mirrors at a science museum or fun house? If you get between two mirrors you'll notice the 'echos' getting progressively dimmer.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  59. Question re: Laser Physics by popo · · Score: 1

    What exactly is the destructive power of a laser though? Can it penetrate deeply? A laser pointed directly at the ground, does what exactly?

    I'm not sure I understand the military potential here simply because I don't understand the physics of what is actually happening with this kind of exposure to laser radiation.

    It has no "impact force" per se, so we're talking about destroying through heat -- but how far (as in depth) does that actually get you?

    Anyone?

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:Question re: Laser Physics by RKBA · · Score: 1

      It has no "impact force" per se, so we're talking about destroying through heat -- but how far (as in depth) does that actually get you?
      Have no fear, at this very moment I am developing a specially designed tinfoil hat with built-in drop down tinfoil sheeting that will encase the entire body in tinfoil protective sheeting so that you can drift like a silver ghost through the powerful energy beam weapons of the forces of evil.
      ;-)
    2. Re:Question re: Laser Physics by SysKoll · · Score: 1

      This type of laser has been successfully used to shoot incoming missiles and mortar rounds. The first application will be battlefield defense against projectile and missiles. See this for example this article.

      And no, you cannot coat a warhead with a mirror surface.

      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  60. Space based energy transmission? by originalucifer · · Score: 1

    Would this be useful in beaming energy from a space based solar energy collection array?

    1. Re:Space based energy transmission? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I think that depends on the laser's efficiency, which I would guess is low. If we beam energy from space, the best way to do it will be with microwaves.

    2. Re:Space based energy transmission? by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Microwaves are better. You can spread the beam out to a large rectenna farm, thus preventing the "oops"factor when/if a laser powerful enough to power Bermuda wanders from the receptor. Read Gerard K. O'Neill's "The High Frontier" or numerous studies for fascinating workups.

  61. With everything happening in the world... by okinawa_hdr · · Score: 1

    ...and man on the bring of self destruction, we have people sitting around building bigger lasers!

  62. Re:fp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I come at home on a Saturday night and with a moderate amount of anticipation open the RSS feed of Slashdot
    for interesting news. To my dismay I find articles titled "What Vista is Really Like", "Pendulum swinging toward privacy", "A bad month for Firefox" and a bunch of user written comments moderated as 1 point.

    A couple of nights ago there was "SETI finally finds something", another "humorous" article plunging well
    below any standard of journalism .. even web journalism.

    This has been going on for a while now, with article descriptions often ending in brain-numbing questions,
    apparently as a sorry attempt to spark conversation.

    (Ladies and) Gentlemen at slashdot, please don't let Fox news get to you.

    I admit this post may have been provocative and if I don't like what i read, I should be the one to change my habits but yet again it is my opinion that Slashdot wasn't always this mundane.

    I wish you all the the best.

  63. 67k? by pixelguru · · Score: 1

    I thought 64k is all anyone would ever need.

    1. Re:67k? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hilarious pixelguru.
      I'm switching to 11 watt fluorescents to fight terror.

  64. But by KKlaus · · Score: 1

    Surely you could develop a system that fired a far less intense beam milliseconds before the full power beam, that was used to map the reflections? With enough computing power, it shouldnt be too hard to tell what will happen when you actually fire, and if it's not to you're liking, you don't.

    --
    Relax I just want some peanuts.
    1. Re:But by LabRat · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you propose to "map the reflections" when they are reflecting to places away from both the target and the firing platform? You planning on putting thousands of optical sensors throughout the battlefield for the purpose?

    2. Re:But by KKlaus · · Score: 1

      Alright so we have to wait for them to elect Tony Blair before we can deploy. The tech isn't ready anyway, and I can wait.

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
  65. Negative Refractive Index by JudgeSlash · · Score: 0

    Would a material with negative refractive index be of any use in dissipating some of the energy in any anti-laser armour? Also, might it be possible to leech this incoming energy for you own ends?

  66. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of Oz by tyrione · · Score: 1

    Now this will make one hell of a show!!

  67. This weapon is lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm thinking being in front of one of these is a very, very bad idea."
    You'd think we were planning to declare war on the rest of the world or something... Oh, wait.

    As far as I'm concerned, it's just one more opportunity to be inconvenienced at the post office, mall, high school, etc.

    How come we never hear about scientific advances in diplomacy?

  68. i solved the power problem, Jerry. by darth_linux · · Score: 1

    and what a popcorn ball we could make from space using this thing. (+2 insightful is you know the reference :-)

    --
    Power to the Penguin!
    1. Re:i solved the power problem, Jerry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +2? wow, now thats inflation :)

  69. Re:Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield la by radicalnerd · · Score: 1

    Mount the laser cannon within a mirror, so the reflections can bounce straight back. IN your face, insurgents!

  70. This could make a lot of aircraft systems obsolete by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    The first military application of this might be air defense and it seems possible that it could neutralize all of the military aircraft systems currently deployed. There might be effective armor systems against it such as mirrors or ceramic tiles (like the space shuttle) but those would take quite a while to develop and deploy. In the meantime, the balance would tip away from air offense and towards air defense which would have a big effect on US military power which heavily depends on aircraft to project force into the battlefield.

  71. Popcorn, hell. It's an assassin in orbit. by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This gadget will be used as a sniper gun from hell. Mount it on a plane, on a hybrid tank with a kilowatt generator, in a satellite.

    Do we really trust the new SuperPresidents(tm) that Bush has created with a silent assassin from orbit? How long until a terrorist(tm) is smoked? The family around him? An environmentalist - already labeled terrorists. Hell. PETA members are now semi-official terrorists. REPORTERS are being labeled fellow travelers. The Army already smoked one building full of reporters with a tank. They'd love them some lasers. We've killed one foreign head of state by hanging, another still is in prison on charges that no one understands. You think the New American Century Cheney/Rice types will hesitate one second in smoking a head of state?

    What really worries me is, say, an individual with advanced power storage tech (coming soon) or a hybrid car generating enough juice to have a lovely laser handgun. Perfect as a targeting system, perfect as a killer. No noise, good for miles, untraceable by conventional means in real time. Also good for "riot" (AKA protest) control for unruly peons. Goes with the microwave cannon, the electrical stunner, the sound cannon.

    In all of this, how exactly are we becoming safer? What the hell do we need this thing for? and once we show it can be done, the Chinese and the Indian research teams will whack their own models out in a couple of years, selling it to the highest bidder. STREET GANGS will have lasers in fifteen years.

    1. Re:Popcorn, hell. It's an assassin in orbit. by ancienthart · · Score: 1
      The frightening thing is that for a targeted, "secret" assassin, we don't need to resort to orbital lasers. The technology is already there in biotech.

      Each person has a unique identifier on their cells that tells the immune system "Ignore this". Take a hair/skin/etc. sample of your "target" and ligate their DNA into a common cold virus, then release said virus over their capital city. Everyone else gets a sniffle, your target gets something much worse because their immune system has trouble recognizing the virus.

  72. Re:Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield la by vandan · · Score: 1

    Are you talking about the Iraqis or the US?

  73. Irrelevant by annenk38 · · Score: 1

    As we all have all seen recently, it doesn't really matter how powerful an arsenal we have. In the war of conquest, nothing works short of genocide. Wake me up when they come up with something against tandem warhead RPG's and snipers.

  74. Get real by BerntB · · Score: 1

    First, don't complain about weapons research! That is a good thing, because they do projects that civilian research doesn't do. For instance, Google for Laser Launch and realize that variants of these solid state lasers might give us more space telescopes and other good uses of money. (I can agree on that building and using the stuff is often a waste of money.)

    CIA, with their military coupes against democratically elected governments

    Oh, please. After the cold war the US generally started to influence clients to become democracies where it is not against their direct interests. (*) For instance, South Korea and Taiwan became democracies when the US wasn't so dependent on them anymore. (The weird part is that afaik, this change came with Reagan a president.)

    It is in the west's direct interest to support democracy -- and not only because democracies don't make war (not even USA). We earn more money because the economy of a democracy isn't so likely to be sh.t and they become better customers. (China is a worrying counter example. They might do something horrible, like getting a 1984 society with computer control going. The horrible part is that it could be stable for all time.)

    You US bashers are as boring as the McCarty communist scare or Mid West brimstone preachers -- you just think another group is responsible for everything bad.

    (*) Like Saudi Arabia, which the US needs more than the other way. If not, the US would pressure Saudi Arabia to democratize. There is this concept called realpolitik, which is practiced by all countries. If the US didn't try to stabilize the Mid East, then Western Europe would have to. We need someone to sell us oil, for now.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Get real by vandan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First, don't complain about weapons research!

      Good to see you're starting out from a defensible position ... NOT! You then go on to make the point that weapons research leads to non-weapons technology. Sure. But that in no way validates weapons research. You can create new technology, indeed the SAME technology, while not researching and creating new weapons. For example Japan's government also pumps an incredible amount of money into high-tech R&D, including developing lasers, but they don't do it via the military-industrial complex. They invest directly into consumer technology. This is much more efficient in coming up with your consumer technology, as well as not creating new weapons. So I'll complain all I want about weapons research, thankyou very much.

      After the cold war the US generally started to influence clients to become democracies where it is not against their direct interests.

      BULLSHIT! You mean like in Vietnam? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan ( while they were setting up the Taliban, and now )? Or when they assassinated the democratically elected leader of Chille in 9/11, 1973? Don't give me this 'America support democracy' crap please. I didn't come down in the last shower.

      We earn more money because the economy of a democracy isn't so likely to be sh.t and they become better customers

      It's true that the economy of a bourgeois democracy under a capitalist system will grow the fastest out of all the organisations structures that we know. That isn't necessarily a good thing, but this is a topic for another discussion. The cold hard truth about the US economy is that it's not exactly riding the wave of exports at the moment. The US economy owes a lot more to its imports than it does to its exports . For example, the US is unbelievably dependent on China for a source of cheap labour. You don't see them pushing China towards a democracy, do you? The only places where the US mentions the word 'democracy' is where they have a natural research worth stealing, and then you can bet it's not democracy that will eventuate, but exactly the opposite. You see, democracy isn't something that is handed down from on high. It's something that people have to struggle for. It's a process. You can't bomb a country into democracy. And I'll say it again: the day when the US pushes for democratic reform in China ( and not via bombing, mind you ), is the day that I reconsider my statement that the US hates democracy.

      You US bashers are as boring as the McCarty communist scare or Mid West brimstone preachers -- you just think another group is responsible for everything bad.

      Well, the thing is that there are plenty of US-bashers around at the moment. It goes without saying that the Arab world thinks as I do. Europe is no different ... when asked to choose the biggest threat to world peace, they choose the US first, and Israel 2nd. The simple fact is that the US, by virtue of its postion as the No 1 imperialist power in the world, is responsible for a great deal of what's wrong in the world. That's why they need more lasers and chemical weapons and nuclear weapons and cluster bombs and immunity from prosecution in the World Court.
    2. Re:Get real by VENONA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "...democracies don't make war (not even USA)."

      I used to believe that too. It was actually quite the cherished notion. One of the worst things about our invasion of Iraq--and reading the many ugly truths that have come out regarding the run-up to the war--is that if I still want to believe in that notion, I'm now required to *not* believe in the US being a democracy.

      The two statements:
      "democracies don't make war"
      and
      "US is a democracy"
      have been proven, in my eyes, to be mutually exclusive.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
  75. Oh Feck that's close. by Ageing+Metalhead · · Score: 1

    Livermore is only 6 miles from my house... Gulp. Good job there's a mountain between me and that fricking laser. A.M

    --
    The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - HGTTG
  76. Oh, so much melodrama by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    Look, it's not a conspiracy. It's pretty simple: we spend the most on our military because we like being the boss. "I'm the boss"--the drive to achieve this is the basis of both our economy and our foreign policy. Anyone who's spent time with Americans knows what overbearing bossy asses we can be. Is this really hard to figure out?

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  77. I checked... by tehdaemon · · Score: 2, Informative

    I checked, you apparently did not. China is second on the list, at about 1/8 of the USA.

    Just note, the US official military budget is over 18% of china's GDP. There is no way that china outspends the US.

    T

    --
    Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
  78. in soviet russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Emission Stimulates YOU!

  79. Re:fp? by Sanat · · Score: 2, Funny

    my opinion that Slashdot wasn't always this mundane.

    Well... yes it has always been... Just quit coming home drunk!

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
  80. What would you use a laser that size that for? by Sierpinski · · Score: 1

    For making a giant block of swiss cheese?

    Seriously though, all you'd need is a tracking system and a large spinning mirror
    and you could vaporize a human target from space.

    Kent's tracking system is gone!!!

  81. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    640 Kilowatts ought to be enough for anybody.

  82. Holding out for 100kW by Slur · · Score: 1

    The article says that hitting the 100-kW level, at which point it would become interesting as a battlefield weapon, could be less than a year away. Why wait, when we could start using them against unarmed protesters right now!

    Of course, what I'm really excited about is that new phase plasma rifle with a 40 watt range.
    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  83. Too stupid -- you are trolling me? by BerntB · · Score: 1

    [Japan] invest directly into consumer technology.

    Are you claiming that Japan's investments in consumer tech will result in many-kwatt lasers? :-)

    I am not sure I believe you are serious by arguing that consumer research could do the same work as military research. References would be interesting? There are differences in the type of targets military research do.

    For instance, consider WW II and the Germans building Goddard's rockets -- how could that have happened in the civilian sector? How many more decades or centuries?

    BULLSHIT! You mean like in Vietnam? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan ( while they were setting up the Taliban, and now )? [Chille in 9/11, 1973]

    Uh, I wrote literally "After the cold war". Chile -73, the Vietnam war and the Talibans were before the end of the cold war. (And North Vietnam was a disgusting regime anyway.) I don't believe you can be this stupid. You must be trolling me.

    It's true that the economy of a bourgeois democracy under a capitalist system will grow the fastest out of all the organisations structures that we know. That isn't necessarily a good thing

    Well, give an example of a working system that is nicer for human rights? For instance, complainers like you aren't thrown into jail or worse? Oh, there are none?

    Also, since most experiments fail with tens of millions of dead, it needs be well tested.

    And for the record, read my comments re realpolitik in my previous post -- if west countries depend upon some non-democracy, we don't nag them about democracy. USA seemed to handle Tiananmen square and latter democracy issues better than e.g. Sweden, which is even more dependent on China for economic reasons.

    My point -- which you never discussed -- was that it is in our (as in "the west's") interest to work for democracy. Afaik, it is quite obviously true. It also makes a conspiracy theory of your hate speech.

    You can't bomb a country into democracy.
    Let me guess, you have some convoluted reason why Japan, (West) Germany etc aren't democratic or unique examples? :-)

    Well, the thing is that there are plenty of US-bashers around at the moment. It goes without saying that the Arab world thinks as I do.

    You feel good agreeing with the worst dictators on the planet? Strange that you lefties never complain about them. You even mentioned Israel, too.

    There are lots of things to complain about USA and Israel -- or any other country in the world. Libya, for instance, worked to destabilize West Africa to improve their own power base and got I-don't-know how many hundreds of thousands died. Then we have Sudan, etc. The UN (and extremists like you) complain literally thousands of times more about Israel, which can't compare. Hell, the local left wing journalists avoid ever mentioning this. I'm sorry, but I have to stand with my initial position -- you left wingers are just another religion.

    Enough of this garbage, I have better things to do than argue with religious nuts.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Too stupid -- you are trolling me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi,

      Here's my reason for complaining about weapons funding; the amount of political and financial effort put into weapons research and US military strategic objectives exceeds the total funding for efforts encouraging positive political change around the world.

      Now that statement above, is very hard to quantify, and loaded with argument, but while the USA stands by and doesn't move towards these things, weapons are open to every possible criticism.

      (a) supports the continued use of land mines and cluster munitions
      (b) refuses to ratify international treaties regarding the authority of the world court
      (c) refuses to let foreign police extradite US criminals
      (d) refuses to push for political efforts to achieve world sustainable development (read Kyoto, read pork barreling subsidies for farmers and industry)
      (e) refuses to lead by example in domestic reform (one child left behind),
              low literacy rates for a wealthy nation.

    2. Re:Too stupid -- you are trolling me? by vandan · · Score: 1

      Are you claiming that Japan's investments in consumer tech will result in many-kwatt lasers? :-)

      Not at all. You're the one who wants military lasers, not me.

      For instance, consider WW II and the Germans building Goddard's rockets -- how could that have happened in the civilian sector? How many more decades or centuries?

      A lot slower, as you point out. The key here is that I don't want weapons research, whereas you seem to think it's necessary. You see, big powerful weapons only kill more people and cause more suffering. Look at Iraq. The Yankees have the biggest weapons around, but are they able to assert their will? No. All they're able to do is kill and injure lots of people. So their fancy weapons give them nothing on the battlefield except for casualties.

      Well, give an example of a working system that is nicer for human rights? For instance, complainers like you aren't thrown into jail or worse? Oh, there are none?

      Quite wanking yourself stupid for a while and think about your own country, stupid. The US is the worst human rights abuser in the developed world. How about Guantanimo Bay and all those secret torture camps. You think this the 'nicest' system possible. You are deluded.

      Also, since most experiments fail with tens of millions of dead, it needs be well tested.

      What?

      USA seemed to handle Tiananmen square and latter democracy issues better than e.g. Sweden, which is even more dependent on China for economic reasons.

      Good example, dickhead. Right after Tianamen Square, the US invested billions in China. I'm sure that sent them the right message about your stance on human rights. Are you thinking about your position at all? Maybe you've got a couple of personalities in there, all trying to get at different, contradictory points?

      My point -- which you never discussed -- was that it is in our (as in "the west's") interest to work for democracy.

      Er ... yes I did. Re-read my comment. I don't have the time or inclination to make the point again if you can't be bothered to read it the first time. Or maybe a different personality read it, and is hiding it from 'you'?

      You feel good agreeing with the worst dictators on the planet?

      No. I very rarely agree with the US on anything. What gives you the idea that I agree with them? You're a real job, aren't you?

      The UN (and extremists like you) complain literally thousands of times more about Israel, which can't compare.

      Extremists! Oh Jesus you are a piece of work. And yes, Israel deserves to be complained about thousands of times more than pretty much every other country.

      Enough of this garbage, I have better things to do than argue with religious nuts.

      I'd hardly call your mindless drivel an 'argument'. And I'm not religious. I was born into a Christian family, and have since renounced my religion. Clearly you haven't evolved emotionally and intellectually to this point yet. I've read some pretty stupid stuff on the old Slashdot over the past day or so, but you really take the cake. If you're pretending, you're doing a damned fine job. Otherwise, you need to get some help.
    3. Re:Too stupid -- you are trolling me? by BerntB · · Score: 1

      Not bad arguments. Some comments, though.

      the amount of political and financial effort put into weapons research and US military strategic objectives exceeds the total funding for efforts encouraging positive political change around the world.

      Consider the end of the cold war. The US forced Soviet to spend so much on weapons to counter their own spending that Soviet closed shop. That was a good political change -- brought by weapon research!

      No, I'm not claiming it will happen again. :-) My point is that the best way to influence for democracy is to make the economy bad for the dictators -- then they will have to change system sooner or later, since (hopefully) only democracy bring wealth. It seems to be the only way that "encouraging positive political change" seems to work. Why would thieves controlling a country step down -- you believe they care about their country? He he...

      (a) Afaik, the US would support the land mine ban -- except for the border North/South Korea. And they do adher to quite strict limits re use of cluster munitions.

      (b, c) The US doesn't trust the international system and the UN, true. Consider the joke of human rights in the UN -- the Arab nations almost got Sudan into the new working group -- after Libya! Etc, etc. I really can't blame the US, I rather wonder at the pro-UN propaganda in my local media.

      (d) Yeah, the industry gets most of the policies it want. Maybe a bit more than in most other countries. Maybe. The US isn't the worst in the farm subsidies clusterfuck (to use an US idiom), it is France -- and those bastards drag the rest of the EU behind them! :-(

      (e) In many ways, the US looks like a third world country. On the other hand, they can't implement a welfare state because they have more or less open borders to some of the poorest countries in the world. Hell, I'm not certain that welfare states are stable in EU. :-(

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  84. I would be more concerned about cheney by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    He is more likely to take it hunting when he goes along with friends.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  85. Lightcraft to space soon? by GoblinKiller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember Leik N. Myrabo saying in a tv-show that with a 100 kW laser his lightcraft could be sent into space. With such a laser built maybe this can be proved a reality quite soon?

  86. Ummm no. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    In terms of absolute dollars, yes. In terms of buying power, not even close. Heck, one American troop makes low wages and yet earn more than 20 chinese soldiers earn. Likewise, the cost of building a ship in China is nothing compared to Americas.

    China is spending to upgrade like there is no tomorrow. They have been busy in America (and europe, russia, Israel, and japan) trying to steal what they can not buy.

    America is spending money so that one soldier can do more. For example, we are heading quickly towards automated and/or remote control planes. In addition, our navy will use fewer troops than any other. This takes money to buy, steal, or research. Since this tech does not exist, then we have to research it. China will then try to steal it, probably from an alley.

    Now, as to your comment about the budget, you are not being quite honest either. Up till 2002, the CIA, NSA, NRO, and DARPA were considered part of the military budget some of the time. In particular, when we referred to the amount as given by the CIA, it does include all that. In addition, when we broke apart the budget into high level percentages, these were also part of the military budget. Of course, when we break the budget apart far enough that these are shown, then no, they were not part of military. Overall, our figures are above board. Now, since 2002, things are a bit different. W. has introduced all sorts of funny accounting. He has required all budgets to quietly take a certain amount off the top and give to the "war" effort. I seriously doubt that money is being shown as part of the true costs. In spite of W's lies, I believe that there is more than enough proof that China's budget is blowing ours out the water. And once W. is gone (hopefully with American provided housing in Leavenworth Ks), then truthfulness will prevail again.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  87. USA *has* the most to spend by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    There is a lot of countries who would love to spend more than the USA, except they don't posses an economy that would allow it.

    US of course have economic interest all over the world, but are actually one of the countries least dependent on foreign trade. USA *could* go isolationist, and it is a surprise that they haven't done so, not that Communism is no longer a credible threat. I actually expect them to do so soon, within a decade. Which means that EU will have to create their own defense, EU is far more vulnerable than USA both economically and geographically. Taiwan would be lost. And life would become exciting for Japan and Asean.

    It would not affect South America, even in its most isolationist times, USA have never been to reclusive to stage a few invasions or coups in what it considers its own back yard.

  88. Venezuela is irrelevant by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    Venezuela is going to be invaded by the USA, the same month USA withdraw their last troops from Iraq to draw attention from the humiliating defeat. The puppet government they put in will have as their primary mandate to ensure oil supply to the US.

    That invasion will actually be the start of a new isolationist period of the US history, where the US concentrate on problems "at home", which will include its "back yard" in South America.

    US will no longer face Islamic terrorism, as soon as US withdraw from the scene, the corrupt Arab leaders will (successfully) point to Iran as the new enemy, with the support of the local religious leaders, who sees Shia-Islam as a threat to their own power base.

  89. Re:Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield la by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but based on past history, Halliburton will be selling them the mirrors within 5 years of the laser being actively used. Or the next republican president will simply give it to them as being needed for freedom.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  90. Might tie in with Bigelow by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Bigelow aerospace is to start selling smaller version of the BA-330 to the military. Place one of these in each unit and you now have an interesting space weapon.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  91. LLNL is part of DOE by Toon+Moene · · Score: 1

    Lawrence Livermoore is part of the Department of Energy. Why talk about military use - it already *has* its use: it's burning through energy all by itself.

  92. American Citizens Still Lack Health Care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    But Americans can pop Jiffy-Pop popcorn from outerspace!!1! kewl!

    The United States: We p0wn The Planet.

  93. Re:Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield la by TheLink · · Score: 1

    IR opaque smoke grenades?

    --
  94. Space Elevator Laser by ajpr · · Score: 1

    This would be very useful for the power transmission on space elevators. Part of the problem is developing effective lasers to supply the climbers with energy. Last I heard 1KW solid state lasers were good, so this could be a vast improvement.

  95. Germany (and other civilized countries) by k2r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >> Problem is that the US isn't the 'most free' nation on Earth - not by a long shot.
    > Name one,
    Germany.

    > and explain how it's more free (not "a better place to live" or "more friendly to the environment").

    If I'm a 17yo guy I can make pictures of my 15yo girlfriend and send them to my email-account
    without both of us getting sued for posession and production of child pornography and being
    trialed as adults and jailed for my own good.

    Of course, I can't yell "Heil Hitler" on the street in Germany without getting into legal trouble but frankly,
    I prefer to live in a country with people taking dirty pictures of themselves than in a country where
    people feel the urge to yell "Heil Hitler" on the street.

    Or being 17yo and getting a blowjob by a 15yo and 10years in jail?
    (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page =wilson)
    Or being 15yo and being charged with sexually abusing YOURSELF?
    (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlif e/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm)
    Or just google about your sodomy-laws?

    You are only free if it comes to destroying and consuming.

    (and yes, there are a lot of things wrong in Germany, too.)

  96. Star Blazers by thief_inc · · Score: 1

    That was my first anime and one of my favorites.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Blazers

    --
    "To Err is Human To Forgive is Divine neither of which is Marine Corp Policy"-My SNCOIC
  97. Oh, please by BerntB · · Score: 1

    It is a classic statement that democracies don't make war with each others. Not even USA.

    I shouldn't have shortened my statement, but I thought everyone had heard about it by now.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Oh, please by VENONA · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Oh, please," yourself. Revisionism needs to be done better than this bungle to have any hope of success.

      I've been hearing this addage, fairly frequently, for 30+ years. But in it's *actual* classic form, which is pretty much as you originally posted it, not with the 'with each others' qualifier you've just added. In which form I have *never* heard it, until now. So if you actually thought "everyone had heard about it by now" in it's qualified form, you are very much mistaken.

      For instance, you might read Bernard Lewis at:
      http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW02-03 /01-0912/features.html
      It's somewhat apropos of my post, informative material by a guy widely judged to be rather thoughtful, and contains the addage in question.

      I strongly suspect that anyone who can use a search engine will find many more references to this adage without your revisionist qualifier than with it.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    2. Re:Oh, please by BerntB · · Score: 1

      Google for democracies don't make war. For instance this. It is, afaik, dogma in conflict research.

      But you might of course be correct that it is not as well known as I think. :-)

      I will state that if it isn't well known, it should be.

      Really interesting link, btw. Thanks.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    3. Re:Oh, please by VENONA · · Score: 1

      OK, now we can peacefully and democratically coexist :). And now I've a good link to add to my collection as well. I'd never heard of Prof. Rummel. I can see that his Web site is going to be time consuming, and I'm almost out of weekend. I guess I'll be starting Monday a bit tired.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    4. Re:Oh, please by VENONA · · Score: 1

      Many hours expended. Much learning done. I have now bootstrapped myself to a state of ignorance--which is an improvement. I *suspect* that the dread Argument of the Qualifier arose because you have PolySci exposure and I don't. Though I seem to be getting some. There's a huge backstory, involving military guy gets out and becomes technologist. I won't bore you with it, save to say that the one or two papers I read at the time (hey, she was really cute, and biology, at least, was working fine) seemed really weak on numbers--statistics with gaping holes, etc.

      I basically wrote off a few things that called themselves sciences, but didn't seem to effectively speak in the language of science--mathematics. It seems that may have changed, at least somewhat, in the case of PolySci, in that there are now more numbers involved than I saw then. Though I have to tell you that the statistics still seem somewhat weak.

      I'm not nearly as adverse to subjects with no (or weak) numbers as I used to be. For instance, I used to hate history (realize now that the teachers were uninspired) but then I got older and realized how stupid it was to have almost *become* history before knowing anything *of* history. A Realpolitik statistic, as it were. That's a reasonable baseline if you wanted to quantify stupid, BTW.

      Assuming you've had some PolySci, and can advise, I've one more question before I burn more late-night hours trying to get a grasp of the overall landscape of the subject. I have to ask, as just identifying and reading the essentials could take months, unless there are a small number of cannonical textbooks you can point me to, as I don't have a lot of spare time. Does it have any predictive power?

      If so, where should I point my reading? Is Wikipedia (found too many errors to generally trust it) currently regarded as anything resembling accurate in the field? I'm not going to claim PolySci not a science if it doesn't have any predictive power--anthropology seems to have little predictive power, for example, but I'm not certainly going to claim it's not a science.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    5. Re:Oh, please by BerntB · · Score: 1

      I *suspect* that the dread Argument of the Qualifier arose because you have PolySci exposure and I don't

      It probably bottoms out in what kind of people that were in the student areas when I studied. I am by no means even an amateur of the subject. I can honestly say that I believe(d) that my position was the common one.

      (-: And about references... if there, against all taste and reason, exists a god --- I will argue that I'm basically a good guy at any judgment of my sins by noting that I resisted the temptation to send you off on a wild goose chase of some improbable literature! :-)

      Yes, not all subjects can use the scientific method (or do formal proofs) -- and that doesn't necessarily mean that the subject is uninteresting and/or unimportant. Your attitude of wanting to learn is an inspiration which I probably needed now, thank you.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    6. Re:Oh, please by VENONA · · Score: 1

      No harm, no foul. I've learned a lot from following your links, and it was all about things I should have paid more attention to for--years. If there's something more I could ask, I'm not aware of what that might be.

      I'll keep poking at it. Who knows? Now and again people who are deeply knowledgeable re: things I have no clue about post here. Part of my love/hate relationship with Slashdot.

      BTW, the *first* science with no predictive power that I got interested in was archeology. Was digging out a trench for a drainage line in Santa Fe, New Mexico (Yeah, she was cute, too. I'm hopeless, that way.) and ran across *many* pottery fragments. Clean them up, then wet them, and Anasazi patterns leap into view. It was probably a 'had to be there' sort of thing, but I *was* there, and it made an impression.

      It was highly cool, and I've never forgotten it. Buy a couple of books (and some decent geo maps) that bring out the context, and the experience just gets deeper. I *groove* on this stuff, though it's a long way from the infosec stuff I do for a living these days.

      Learning is it's own reward. Life is about having fun, and I mean to have a good time with it. I can't get away from infosec (you've no idea how I groove on security stuff, or the client time involved), but I try to work on free mapping and database software every week. The goal is help field scientists plot specific locations, in a Geographic Information Systems context.

        It's way fun, and there's probably a university in your area that could use some help.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
  98. Advice -- at least be an entertaining troll. by BerntB · · Score: 1

    And yes, Israel deserves to be complained about thousands of times more than pretty much every other country.

    You should be in Guinness book of records for largest double standards to judge different sides with. Consider:

    • Syria is a neighbor of Israel and part of the conflict. Check HRW.org. It is one of the worst breakers of human rights, breaks war laws, when Syria had an uprising they killed indiscriminately (not even trying to avoid civilians, like Israel), in the list of worst police states on the planet, assassinates politicians in other countries ... etc. The point is, it can easily be argued that in most any parameter -- Syria is worse than Israel by multiple factors of ten.
    • Sudan has organized mass murders, mass rapes and ... ah, what the Hell. They kill civilians by the hundreds of thousands. In Palestine, Israel (mostly) tries to target people killing civilians. The dead from Israeli fire are at most hundreds a year. The one case of a guy murdering civilians in a mosque is still in prison, afaik.
    • Libya's destabilization of West Africa seems to have resulted in even worse numbers than Sudan.
    • Check memritv.org and e.g. read about Hamas' quotes from the Zion Protocols. We talk about the same sources that inspired Mein Kampf (which, by the way, sell well in muslim countries!) You can find rasists in any country -- but not that kind of content in state controlled and censored media.
    • Etc, etc.

    I call bad troll.

    True Believers really do seem to think that a factor of thousand worse are worth a thousand of the criticism -- but most aren't stupid enough to say it where it can be answered in writing.

    My honest opinion, not an insult, is that I really hope you're a bad troll and not this stupid.

    Let us see what more you write?

    Quite [sic] wanking yourself stupid [...] stupid [...] dickhead [...] mindless drivel [...] you haven't evolved emotionally and intellectually [...]

    I try not to keep double standards of judging and believing anyone (except Microsoft) are evil. So it made my day when I was called not evolved by you with your double standards in judging of a factor of a million! He he...

    Your arguments weren't coherent either. I don't have the energy or the interest, but some fast points:

    US complained a lot about China when other countries (which also had business there) kept their mouths shut. And the US aren't a dictatorship (they don't implement it in other countries either, since even they start wars with dictators) -- so that means you support the worst dictators on the planet against democracies. I didn't understand that you believed that your conspiracy theories re natural resources was a relevant answer to my argument -- please give references to economical (non-extremist) literature... Etc, etc.

    At least be an entertaining troll -- that was just sad. (And please don't claim that you're not a troll. I prefer to hope you're just a sad boy without a life and not that stupid.)

    Now I'll go do stuff in my life. Please try to get one too, troll.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Advice -- at least be an entertaining troll. by vandan · · Score: 1

      Syria is a neighbor of Israel and part of the conflict. Check HRW.org. It is one of the worst breakers of human rights, breaks war laws, when Syria had an uprising they killed indiscriminately (not even trying to avoid civilians, like Israel), in the list of worst police states on the planet, assassinates politicians in other countries ... etc. The point is, it can easily be argued that in most any parameter -- Syria is worse than Israel by multiple factors of ten

      Israel does all these things, but on a larger scale than Syria.

      Sudan has organized mass murders, mass rapes and ... ah, what the Hell. They kill civilians by the hundreds of thousands. In Palestine, Israel (mostly) tries to target people killing civilians. .

      Same for Israel. Keep in mind how the state was actually formed as well ... it was genocide.

      The dead from Israeli fire are at most hundreds a year

      There are millions of Palestinian refugees who have had their homes bombed or bulldozed. Israel kills hundreds of Palestinians at a time , NOT in a year.

      US complained a lot about China when other countries (which also had business there) kept their mouths shut.

      That's international diplomacy for you. The Chinese government knew exactly what it meant when on the one hand, they were chided for the massacre, and on the other hand experienced a massive flood of capital entering the country from the US, along with huge manufacturing deals ( setting up sweat shops ).

      And the US aren't a dictatorship

      It's all relative. They're a hell of a lot closer to a dictatorship than they are to democracy, particularly with this 'Commander in Chief' bullshit that apparently never ends.

      so that means you support the worst dictators on the planet against democracies

      That's a simpleton analysis. Opposing one side doesn't mean supporting another side. There are more than 2 sides.

      I didn't understand that you believed that your conspiracy theories re natural resources was a relevant answer to my argument

      It's this sort of drivel that let to my insults in my past post, and the reason is that I know that you know you're wrong here, but push the point anyway because it suits your agenda. It doesn't take a genius to figure that oil is a central issue in Iraq. The Bush dynasty is founded in oil. Cheney is an oil dealer. The whole administration has quite an unnatural fixation with oil, as well as being personally incredibly enriched by it. I don't need to offer you references. If you can't see the truth already, no amount of 'proof' will shock you out of your fairytale world where the US is some big happy benevolent power seeking to free the world, and Israel is their friendly peace-making sidekick.

      Now I'll go do stuff in my life. Please try to get one too, troll.

      Oh dear. Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't automatically make them a troll. If it did, then you'd be the biggest troll on the planet at the moment. But I don't call you a troll, just deluded.
  99. Yeah, but... by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but can you shoot it out of a Laser Cat?

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  100. Anything else? by sir_montag · · Score: 1

    A phased plasma pulse-laser in the forty watt range...

  101. The MythBusters Will Survive by Icemaann · · Score: 1

    They must have anticipated this, its obviously why they built several gigantic mirrors. And you thought it was only for burning up raging pirates.

    --

    Icemaann
    http://www.nugg.org
  102. Oh please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you say C-130 gunship?

    There you go, I knew you could.

    Of course, now you'll REALLY be able to "light 'em up"!

  103. altar vs. alter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This in the name of making it cheaper and on the alter of "free trade."

    JSYK, it's "altar" with an "a", not an "e". Don't feel bad; I had to look it up too to be sure.

    It's just another one of those words you have to know to get right (or at least be suspicious of enough to check) because both spellings are correct to a spell checker.

    (*) JSYK: Just So You Know

    1. Re:altar vs. alter by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Why don't you get a life? Spell checkers and such don't always come up with the right words, people get tired, make minor mistakes etc. Try thinking of your errors when you get onto others. You may spell great, but you may have other weaknesses. How about bothering to comment on what is intended (and you knew what was intended) rather than being the spell check police?

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
  104. You get ANY fact right? At all? Ever?! :-) by BerntB · · Score: 1

    There are millions of Palestinian refugees who have had their homes bombed or bulldozed. Israel kills hundreds of Palestinians at a time , NOT in a year.

    Hundreds dead at a time?! Millions of homes destroyed?! Oh, no references? Strange... not.

    Here is what HRW, a known Israel critic, has to say:

    As of October, the number of Palestinians killed in 2006 by Israeli security forces had reached 449, at least half of whom were not participating in hostilities at the time of their deaths, raising serious concerns for civilian protection. The Israeli army's continued failure to conduct investigations into most killings of civilians reinforced a culture of impunity in the army and robbed victims of an effective remedy.

    That means 449 for most of 2006, which was a very active year. Your claim of hundreds a time is idiocy -- Hell, you give stupid a bad name! You can't be this stupid and handle a keyboard. You must be a troll or have mental problems.

    Can you give good references to any of your claims? At all?!

    And the millions of houses... is there a million houses in the Palestine areas totally?! What a nitwit you are!

    First you claimed that a democracy (Israel) is worth a thousand times more criticism than most any country (not other democracy) on the planet! Then you make idiotic claims re Syria, one of the worst dictatorships in the world!

    Now you specifically claim that despite your insane claims about genocide etc done by democracies that you're not a useful idiot for the dictators?

    Syria is one of the world's worst breakers of human rights and police states is worse than any democracy? How about some references, you lying idiot troll? This is what the well-known Israel-critic, HRW, has to say about Syria.

    (I didn't read the rest. You are already shown to be a liar without neither a clue nor a reference.)

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:You get ANY fact right? At all? Ever?! :-) by vandan · · Score: 1

      Hundreds dead at a time?! Millions of homes destroyed?! Oh, no references? Strange... not.

      Fine. The 1st 3 items that came up in a Google search. I suppose you find this even 'stranger' than when I didn't provide links:
      http://english.people.com.cn/200204/12/eng20020412 _93947.shtml
      http://www.juancole.com/2007/01/125-killed-hundred s-wounded-by.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin
      I suppose you have an excuse for each of these?

      Can you give good references to any of your claims? At all?!

      I have given the 1st 3 from a google search, though I suspect your head will remain firmly buried in the sand.

      What a nitwit you are!

      Oh shit. What can I say? Takes on to know one.

      First you claimed that a democracy (Israel) is worth a thousand times more criticism than most any country (not other democracy) on the planet!

      Israel is hardly a good example of a properly functioning democracy. You can't claim to have a democracy simply because there are elections. Take Iraq, for example. No-one in their right minds call this a democracy. Likewise, I reject the idea that the US or my home country, Australia, are democracies. You see, for democracy to work you need a couple of important requirements met:

      - freedom of speech
      In Israel, I believe anyone who criticises the Zionist agenda finds themselves in a very difficult situation indeed
      Also, freedom of speech doesn't just mean the freedom to stand on the corner and say what I think ... it means equal access to the media. So if I have a political viewpoint that doesn't get covered in the media, and in fact only gets criticised, then that's hardly democratic, as people's opinions are very much shaped by the media. And in Israel, the media is very, very right-wing.

      - independent country
      In Israel's case, it doesn't really matter what political parties want to do, because they are 100% dependent on the US for aid ... in fact Israel is the biggest recipient of aid in the world. They also receive unbelievable gifts of weapons and ammunition from the US. So they are a US client state, not a democracy.

      Then you make idiotic claims re Syria, one of the worst dictatorships in the world!

      Look. What Syria does inside it's own borders is up to the Syrians. I don't by any means like what's going on there, but on the other hand I understand that the best people for changing Syria are Syrians ... not the US or UN or whatever. Now what Syria does outside it's borders is dwarfed incredibly by what Israel does outside it's own borders. In fact I say that Israel shouldn't have any borders at all ... it shouldn't exist. But keep in mind that when people are asked about the biggest threat to world peace, no-one says "Syria". Everyone says either the US or Israel. Syria doesn't even register.

      Now you specifically claim that despite your insane claims about genocide etc done by democracies that you're not a useful idiot for the dictators?

      Ah ... no I made no such claim. In fact I'm having trouble making that sentence make sense. If there is a point in there, try making it again.

      Syria is one of the world's worst breakers of human rights and police states is worse than any democracy?

      Well, as I said, what goes on inside Syria is really up to Syrians to fix. They are the only people that can liberate themselves from their own ruling class. But Israel's humans rights abuses against

  105. Gun rights... why again? by loqi · · Score: 1

    Gun rights are far from the only way I measure freedom, but I do think they're enumerated second in the US Constitution for a good reason.

    I'll certainly acknowledge that there used to be a good reason. But I fail to see how citizens armed with guns are going to fight any semi-modern national power (most importantly the U.S., since we're protecting ourselves from tyranny, right?). If gun rights advocates actually think that individual martial capacity protects their freedoms, why aren't they advocating legal ownership of more effective weapons for asymmetric warfare (e.g., explosives)? After all, the 2nd says "arms", not "guns".

    My general impression is that most vocal supporters of gun rights are more concerned with protecting their particular hobby (which just so happens to have constitutional support) than with protecting their freedoms.

    --
    If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
  106. Re:Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield la by Jasper__unique_dammi · · Score: 1

    Eh, didnt really think about wether it was possible. Should have been a funny moderation.
    (what follows is blah blah)
    Hmm, if they have a mirror with inefficientcy of 3%, 3kW get through, which can heat a liter of water from 30 to 100 in 2.3 seconds. The amount of water required for cooling is reasonable. Dont think it as practical though, since you dont know where the laser will hit, and the area the laser shines on is small. (limits on cooling small area)

  107. As expected -- you lied in the first paragraph by BerntB · · Score: 1

    Your first claimed that Israel killed hundreds of Palestinians at a time and when I pointed out that HRW disagreed, you gave one "example" of Jenin, but see further down in the WikiPedia link you gave yourself:

    Further investigation by the United Nations and international reporters found that 52 Palestinians were killed in the operation, 22 of whom were civilians. [...]
    Ultimately, Human Rights Watch verified the deaths of 52 Palestinians, of whom it concluded that 27 were suspected to be armed combatants, 22 were civilians, and the status of the remaining 3 could not be determined.

    You claimed the IDF killed hundreds "at a time" -- Jenin was an uniquely large battle and not even THAT supports your insane claims. You must have been aware of this and just looked for some bad references.

    You're a pathetic fanatic -- here I found a lie in your first paragraph(!!), so I didn't read any further since this isn't the first time you are shown a shameless liar. Will you find some more bad references to support your idiocy now?

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:As expected -- you lied in the first paragraph by vandan · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not in the business of doing research for you. As I stated, I did a very quick google search, and then linked the 1st 3 articles that came up. They all talked about hundreds of deaths, so I figured I'd link them and get on with the rest of my response. I see you haven't commented on the rest of my response, while coming up with excuses for Jenin.

  108. You repeatedly lie -- and now just lie about it?! by BerntB · · Score: 1

    I see you haven't commented on the rest of my response, while coming up with excuses for Jenin.

    Excuses? I showed that your claims were totally mindbogglingly wrong according to your own reference.

    If you really is an uneducated idiot and didn't lie there, you certainly did lie here -- when you claimed that it was "excuses" when I showed your original claim wrong.

    I wrote that I saw no reason to read the rest of your lies when you have consistently lied time and again while trying to defend impossible statements. You are a really, really boring troll.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  109. Oops: Water has capacity of 4184 J/K kg, also, maybe 10% is a better estimate for mirror efficientcy. Lets say the laser spot is 10cm across, and there is a 1 cm layer of water behind the mirror to cool it. This is 10*10*1=100 cm^3=0.1 liter of water, about 0.1 kg, so the water will only be heated at a rate of about 20 K/s. So it will take at least 5 seconds to get it to boil. And ofcourse you can circulate the water, with a minimum speed of only 10cm/5s=2 cm/s. So they could definitely make mirrors to withstand the laser. In most instances it isnt practical though, the lasers are the last thing on their mind, other weapons like rockets and machineguns are way more effective. An exception maybe is the use of lasers in defence against rockets, since the beam moves at the speed of light, it is possibly a lot cheaper and effective to use lasers rather then other rockets /rapid fire against them. (but this shows that a reflective coating for rockets can help protect them)

  110. Re:Shortly after introduction 100kW battlefield la by Jasper__unique_dammi · · Score: 1
  111. Lunar etching... by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    Great. Look at the moon with binoculars and see an ad etched into the surface. Erase Armstrong's footprints and claim Apollo didn't happen. Vaporize those darn music pirates.

  112. Re:You repeatedly lie -- and now just lie about it by vandan · · Score: 1

    Excuses?

    OK. So you didn't come up with any excuses. Instead, you refused to discuss Israeli atrocities at all. Either way. Head in sand.

    I showed that your claims were totally mindbogglingly wrong according to your own reference

    Wrong again. You claimed this. But your claim is patently false. I gave the example of Jenin, which you refuse to accept as this is somehow outside the realm of normal Israeli terrorist activity, so we're not allowed to talk about it.
    Try addressing some of the issues I raised, do some research beyond the extreme right-wing, pro-Zionist trash you're mindwashed by, and return with a serious response when you are able.
  113. You're the most shameless liar I've seen by BerntB · · Score: 1

    OK. So you didn't come up with any excuses. Instead, you refused to discuss Israeli atrocities at all. Either way. Head in sand.

    Your accusation is just another lie since I quoted criticism of Israel from HRW here (when I showed you wrong on another point). My ability to complain about Israel isn't relevant -- let me recap:

    1. you claimed that Israel was worth a thousand times the criticism of most any other country.
    2. I gave specific counter examples (same link) of countries that were antagonistic to Israel -- Syria, Sudan, Libya and the nazi-like acceptance of antisemitism prevalent in the muslim Mid East (the world today lack any similar case of racism). All those are factors of ten worse in most any parameter than any present democracy like Israel.
    3. I pointed out that since according to HRW, Amnesty, etc you complain a thosand times more about someone at least a thousand times less bad -- so you have double standards of a factor of a million!! Guinness Book of Records!
    4. You tried to give examples of where Israel was as bad (giving up on "a thousand times") as my examples by these lies:
      1. democracy in Israel is bad (worse than one of the worst police states of the planet, Syria?!)
      2. Israel kills hundreds of Palestinians at a time (which, if it hadn't been another of your lies, still would be a thousand times less than the hundreds of thousands of civilian dead in Sudan -- your lies doesn't even support your original lie, idiot!!)
    5. You tried to give the example of Jenin as an example of atrocities with hundreds of dead -- but not even your own reference supported that, idiot liar!

    I gave the example of Jenin, which you refuse to accept as this is somehow outside the realm of normal Israeli terrorist activity

    Yet Another Lie. First, you made the specific claim that "Israel kills hundreds of Palestinians at a time , NOT in a year" so I quoted HRW (same link) to show you an idiot and/or a liar.

    Then you claimed Jenin as a single example ("hundreds .. at a time" implies more than once) of hundreds of dead. I pointed out that even your own reference contradicted that even a hundred died in that battle -- then you lied in what you commented on. Now you back from that and lie and claim that I refuse to discuss Jenin, which is just another lie.

    (Since you literally only argue with lies I don't bother with e.g. your complaints about Israeli democracy (according to you -- worth a thousand more times criticism than Syria, one of the worst police states on the planet!!) and your equally insa.. unique claim that all extreme political opinions should have equal amount of media access for a country to be a democracy, which would disqualify all countries. Do you know anything about the size and influence of the peace movement in Israel?)

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:You're the most shameless liar I've seen by vandan · · Score: 1

      Well, simply claiming that everything that a critic of Israel say is lies, doesn't make it so.
      You are far too content to jump up and down about the fact that there are other countries that don't live up to your standards, and yet you refuse to adhere to those standards yourself. I maintain that Israel is a thousand times worse than the countries you listed. As a so-called democracy, the Israeli people have to accept responsibility for the terrorist actions of their democratically elected government. People living in countries that don't even claim to be democratic obviously can't have the finger pointed at them for the actions of their rulers. You need to stop worrying about how bad Syria etc are and concentrate on your own backyard ... if it could be called that, though I still maintain that Israel is really Palestine under illegitimate military occupation. Try responding to that, instead of bitching and moaning about everything else you think is wrong with the world. And if you must keep pointing the finger at others, try looking at the effect the US and other Western powers have had in the area with regard to the lack of democracy, fundamentalism, etc. You are very keen to quote Human Rights Watch when they criticize other countries. Try reading up on what they say about your favourite country.

  114. You're lying in the first sentence AGAIN! by BerntB · · Score: 1

    Well, simply claiming that everything that a critic of Israel say is lies, doesn't make it so.

    That is a lie in the first sentence again!! I jeered at you for making repeated insane claims on a subject, so you make attacks by lying about my opinions (which I haven't even discussed) and attack that straw man. For a specific list of your stupidities, go back to what you commented on here.

    You can't be real -- you must be the most boring troll I've ever seen. At least use something else but lies and personal attacks. A good troll use perverted logic, too. Please learn to think.

    maintain that Israel is a thousand times worse than the countries you listed. As a so-called democracy, the Israeli people have to accept responsibility for the terrorist actions of their democratically elected government. People living in countries that don't even claim to be democratic obviously can't have the finger pointed at them for the actions of their rulers.
    A recap with references to this idiocy here:
    1. You claim that Israel is worth a thousand times more criticism than most any country
    2. I list counter examples of antagonistic countries to Israel (not just any countries) which are up to a factors of a thousand worse on most any parameter of human rights, etc.
    3. You judge different sides with a double standards of a factor of 1000 X 1000 == a million! Which should qualify you for a place in Guinness Book of Records.
    4. You claim that Israel is at least as bad as many of those countries (not a thousand) -- and are shown to lie
    5. So you make more claims -- and are shown to flat out lie
    6. Including on what I comment on here, you make personal attacks by lying about my opinions and then attacking your straw men
    7. Finally, you here claim that Israel isn't a real democracy -- but since they (and the west etc) claims that, they are according to you worth a million times more criticism than dictators?! Obvious problems:
      1. You change position when shown to be a lying idiot without integrity, making another unique claim no one else argues in public.
      2. Most every dictator calls his country democratic (Cuba, DDR, Chile etc) -- including most Arab dictators like Gadaffi. So your ... unique ... "argument" that you can judge a country claiming to be democratic a million times harsher should be relevant to them, too!!
      3. You really are a useful idiots defending the world's worst dictators.
      4. Stable democracies generally don't start war with each others. If the Arab countries were democratic, the Mid East would probably be peaceful.
    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:You're lying in the first sentence AGAIN! by vandan · · Score: 1

      There really is nothing worse than a little brat who can't face up to reality, and instead claims that the rest of the world must be 'lying'. I don't lie. I don't need to. It's people who support murderous, racist, fundamentalist states such as Israel who have to do overtime lying.

      Now one of the things you love to lie about is Israel's supposed democracy. But it's a joke, even by bourgeois-democratic standards. Even in bourgeois democracies, they have universal suffrage. But Israel doesn't. Only Jews can vote. If you're a Palestinian refugee, you can't even get back into your own country. How the fuck is that democratic? Really, tell me. And try to keep the lies and bullshit to a minimum.

      You then have the audacity to complain about other people starting wars. Again, you need to look a bit closer to home if you're concerned about war. Israel is the biggest threat and obstacle to peace in the Middle East. This is not just my opinion. This is accepted as fact worldwide . Deal with it. Roses do not protude from the anuses of every Jew in Israel. Far from it.

      Now instead of listing your bullet points once more, and using your trusty "Oh my God! You're Lying! It's all LIES!" approach, try engaging your little-used brain and addressing some of the many issues I have raised with your fine fundamentalist cesspool.

  115. Correction -- you lie in another way by BerntB · · Score: 1

    Well, simply claiming that everything that a critic of Israel say is lies, doesn't make it so.

    I didn't read carefully -- here you didn't do another baseless attack on my opinions on subjects that hasn't been discussed. Here you claimed to not be a liar. I motivated my description of you as a disgusting liar; if you could have argued against that with more than another baseless claim, you would have.

    For the rest, I discussed that in the other message.

    FYI, I don't really care about the Mid East -- so your repeated personal attacks are irrelevant, liar. Israel is just another piece of land that changed hands after the both World Wars (hardly the most unfair land change either) and would not have become its own country if Israel hadn't been created. If that has to be changed, then there are lots of other map changes to do. (I follow the Mid East because of what it says about my local media.)

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  116. So why don't you discuss all your insane claims? by BerntB · · Score: 1

    I don't lie. I don't need to.

    So why don't you discuss all places where you have been shown talking utter crap without connection to reality? Like when you claimed that Israel killed hundreds at a time -- which you first couldn't support and then started lying when I pointed out that your own damn reference contradicted you. See what you commented, for a list of what a complete fanatical idiot you are -- with references.

    Even in bourgeois democracies, they have universal suffrage. But Israel doesn't. Only Jews can vote.

    So how did the Arabs get into the knesset? Around 20% of the Israeli population are Arabic -- and they have the rights to vote. Stop lying some damn time!

    I don't have the energy to handle the rest of your lies (Israel doesn't generally start wars -- Hezbollah started acts of wars this summer by kidnapping, for instance.)

    I took just one of your insane claims (about Israel being worth a thousand times the criticism than the worst dictators on the planet) and asked for support -- which you couldn't give, so you started lying to hide that -- and followed with personal attacks and lying about my position, which I haven't even discussed. The only damn reference you have given supported my position!!

    You give fanatical liars a bad name.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  117. If you really aren't a troll... by BerntB · · Score: 1

    If you really aren't a troll, I have a message.

    People using critical thinking try to look at facts first -- and then build opinions. Not the other way. We don't start thinking that Israel, muslims, marxists or any other group/country is bad. We are also aware of that most of our opinions are more-or-less wrong and will change over time. I have changed opinions on most subjects and they'll probably change again.

    I have found that idealists like you have a model of the world -- and then confuse your world-model with your image of yourself. To point out that your opinion isn't supported by facts was to attack you as a person (like posting doctors records to you being impotent, or something) and since you had no support, you replied with lies and meaningless personal attacks. A sane reaction would be to realize that you have lots of opinions without reality basis since I could literally take anything testable you wrote and show it wrong.

    And if you are going to again lie and claim my description of the "discussion" is wrong, see this overview of the last part.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  118. Re:So why don't you discuss all your insane claims by vandan · · Score: 1

    I don't have the energy to handle the rest of your lies (Israel doesn't generally start wars -- Hezbollah started acts of wars this summer by kidnapping, for instance.)

    Oh that's a good one. MY lies? I think you'll find that Israel was the cause of this conflict. Hezbollah were responding to Israeli attacks that killed a number of Palestinians from the same family on a beach. And don't pretend you don't know that Israel has been constantly bombing Lebanese 'military targets' since the previous war you started with them.

    Like when you claimed that Israel killed hundreds at a time -- which you first couldn't support

    Actually I did. I gave an example of Jenin. If you want more examples, try googling for Nakba. Fundamentalist Jews murdered hundreds of THOUSANDS of Palestinians in the killing frenzy that was to become the norm for Israel. You keep claiming that I'm lying and can't back up my claims, but in reality it is YOU who are a liar, and can't respond to the truth when it is staring you in the face.

    Since you're a little dim and seem to want proof, proof and more proof, even though fundamentalist violence is a way of life for your kind, I will provide more links for you to ponder ( I assume you'll call them all LIES ):

    '100s' killed in Jenin
    117 Palestinians killed, hundreds injured during media's "relative calm"
    '100s' killed in current military campaign
    100s of children killed

    So why don't you shut the fuck up about my supposed lies, and start apologising for your error? Come on. I'm waiting. Idiot.
  119. Ohh... bad links! You have NO integrity by BerntB · · Score: 1

    I think you'll find that Israel was the cause of this conflict. Hezbollah were responding to Israeli attacks that killed a number of Palestinians from the same family on a beach.

    I wrote that Hezbollah committed acts of war -- your claim that Hezbollah's motivation isn't relevant, idiot. And give refs to your claim about Hezbollah's motivation -- I haven't seen they claim that. Also, I don't know how that family died since someone seems to be lying about that --- who? I don't know -- and neither does you.)

    Actually I did. I gave an example of Jenin.

    There were extreme claims re Jenin at first which were then retracted. You quote old news stories about the first claims (and partisan references to the most propaganda-ized conflict in history!). This is documented in the link to wikipedia which you yourself gave -- and I quoted. So you must know that you lie here. And I already gave a link to HRW to show about total numbers of dead. Your lack of integrity in repeating known bad facts is incredible.

    If you want more examples, try googling for Nakba. Fundamentalist Jews murdered hundreds of THOUSANDS of Palestinians in the killing frenzy that was to become the norm for Israel.

    You lie as always. The Wipipedia don't support your version, it says:

    Large numbers of the Arab population fled the newly-created Jewish State during the Palestinian exodus, which is referred to by many Palestinian groups and individuals as the Nakba [...], meaning "disaster" or "cataclysm". Some Israeli historians suggest that the Palestinians fled because of orders from Arab generals. Many Palestinians left under the belief that the Arab armies would prevail and they would return.[18] Moreover, "Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel" were offered "full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions" in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel; many, however, refused. In addition, the entire Jewish population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was either killed, captured, or expelled by Arab armies. Many also fled to Israel.

    Estimates of the final refugee count range from 400,000 to 900,000 with the official United Nations count at 711,000.[19] The continuing conflict between Israel and the Arab world resulted in a lasting displacement that persists to this day, due to the fact that no Arab country absorbed the refugees nor did Israel wish to allow back into itself a potentially hostile population.

    Immigration of Holocaust survivors and Jewish refugees from Arab lands doubled Israel's population within a year of independence. Over the following years approximately 850,000 Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews fled or were expelled from surrounding Arab countries and Iran. Of these, about 600,000 settled in Israel; the remainder went to Europe and the Americas (see Jewish exodus from Arab lands).

    The only mass murder mentioned was done on Jews, as usual. Also, as usual, you are shown to be a lying idiot.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Ohh... bad links! You have NO integrity by vandan · · Score: 1

      I wrote that Hezbollah committed acts of war -- your claim that Hezbollah's motivation isn't relevant, idiot.

      No, you stupid lying little idiot. I merely said that Hezbollah were responding to Israeli atrocities.

      And give refs to your claim about Hezbollah's motivation -- I haven't seen they claim that.

      No. Instead, why don't you go fuck yourself? You think you can continually call me a liar and demand I back up everything I say, yet you refuse to discuss the problems with you fucking idiot fundamentalist Jews. It's plain for anyone with half a brain what Hezbolla's motivation was. If you can't see it, then you clearly have less than half a brain.

      Also, I don't know how that family died since someone seems to be lying about that

      WHAT? You stupid fucking retarded Jew! It was an international incident! How do you like it when people deny the Holocaust? You think you're the only humans, and the only ones who deserve to have your people mourned? But this attitude means that the opposite happens - people mourn all other deaths apart from fuckwits like you and your retarded friends in Israel.

      Your lack of integrity in repeating known bad facts is incredible.

      Oh sure. *I* lack integrity. That's a good one. Well, the people who know me know how far from the truth this is. I put it to you that YOU lack integrity, and you are a petty little liar who denies everything that challenges your backwards thinking. What have you got to say about that? Nothing, I bet, because you are incapable of responding to anything I say, apart from crying like a baby about lies.

      The only mass murder mentioned was done on Jews, as usual.

      Where is your proof? I don't see you linking to anything proving any mass murder. I've linked 4 documents that prove that Israel is responsible for mass murder. Since you have nothing constructive to say about it, and no proof otherwise, I can only conclude that I've won the argument by default.

      I will now only respond to further correspondence if you actually make an attempt to address the multitude of issues I've raised, instead of just denying the Palestinian Holocaust ( and I know how much you Jews hate Holocaust deniers ). So either come up with some serious discussion, or don't bother. I have a strong, well educated mind, and I'm not about to be swayed by some snotty little arsewipe who's best arguement is crying "LIAR!". That's no argument, and to prove my point, I will once again call you a liar.
  120. Racist insults, too?! You're a real class act! by BerntB · · Score: 1

    Here you even do racist attacks, which really is beyond the Pale in western society -- I guess your stinking racist ass are from the here, or something? I really hope you're a bad troll, but if not -- I wrote this as honest advice to you.

    No, you stupid lying little idiot. I merely said that Hezbollah were responding to Israeli atrocities.

    And how do you know that? It looked like realpolitik, i.e. Iran needed focus moved from their troubles -- and since they finance and train Hezbollah, they get what they want. Which seems in character, considering Hezbollah's present cynic power politics in Lebanon.

    WHAT? You stupid fucking retarded Jew! It was an international incident! How do you like it when people deny the Holocaust? You think you're the only humans, and the only ones who deserve to have your people mourned?

    Everyone that disagree with you is a Jew? The Israelis motivated why it probably wasn't a miss from their artillery but a Palestinian mine on the beach -- did the IDF lie or was it wrong? I don't know. You don't know either -- but you are certain who is guilty! It is always the Jews!! Racist antisemite fanatic asshole.

    Since you have nothing constructive to say about it, and no proof otherwise, I can only conclude that I've won the argument by default.

    You made claims -- I pointed out repeatedly that you haven't given any support -- and that even your own references contradicted you! (Also, Jenin's proganda that was retracted is well documented). You know all this -- but you claim victory and do racist attacks. You must be a troll, no single person on the planet can have that little integrity.

    I will now only respond to further correspondence if you actually make an attempt to address the multitude of issues I've raised, instead of just denying the Palestinian Holocaust ( and I know how much you Jews hate Holocaust deniers )

    I gave a reference to Wikipedia and showed that your statements wasn't supported -- in fact, the systematic murders were on Jews by Arabs, as usual. That follows most other sources I've read (there was one documented massacre in one (1) Arab village, which you could have given a reference to).

    I have a strong, well educated mind, and I'm not about to be swayed by some snotty little arsewipe who's best arguement is crying "LIAR!". That's no argument, and to prove my point, I will once again call you a liar.

    Repeating empty claims when showed to be wrong implies a strong mind?! Another unique position... like that democracies are worth a million times more criticism than dictatorships -- even despite the democracy being false!! You claim to not lie -- but never discuss where I showed you wrong, time and time again (see references I gave above).

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Racist insults, too?! You're a real class act! by vandan · · Score: 1

      Sorry but you won't get any further responses to your comments unless you respond to mine. You failed to do that at all in your last post.

  121. Your lies and racist attacks are enough... by BerntB · · Score: 1

    Sorry but you won't get any further responses to your comments unless you respond to mine. You failed to do that at all in your last post.

    I have shown you a liar and in the comment before this last one, you showed racism. I guess you have said more than enough...

    Hmmm... it is interesting how you you define that I don't respond to your arguments, since you've complained about it twice. Could you answer a couple of specific questions?

    Didn't I respond when I pointed out that the countries Israel are in conflict with are factors of ten worse in most any human rights parameter -- so you probably made a world record(!) in size of double standards when you claimed that Israel was worth a thousand times more criticism than e.g. Sudan?

    When I showed that you were wrong about your claims about the Jews being mass murderers at the Nakba (the Arabs mass murdered and threw out Jews instead), I didn't respond when I disagreed and showed your antisemite lies to be wrong yet again?

    You made wrong claims about Jenin (see first references on the page). I didn't respond because I showed you wrong instead of agreeing with your repeated claim that Israel is a thousand times worse than Sudan? Or didn't I respond when I jeered at you for lying and repeating your wrong claims about Jenin even after I pointed out that you were totally wrong?

    In my last post, didn't I respond when I pointed out how extremely bad style it is in the western world to do racist attacks? The worst insult in the west is "racist". Or didn't I respond when I reminded you about how pathetic you were when shown wrong by lying and doing personal attacks? Or didn't I respond when I laughed about your claim that you had a "strong mind" after doing racism attacks and all that fanatical bullshit?

    I attacked just a few of your insanities which I had the energy to read. I really, really hope you're a troll and not this pathetic. If not, please read this link.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Your lies and racist attacks are enough... by vandan · · Score: 1
      Well. No you've really just repeated the same lies. You've denied the Palestinian Holocaust, putting yourself on the level of the Nazis. And you've failed to respond to the 4 examples I gave you of your people killing hundreds of Palestinians at a time, other than discarding them as 'lies, all LIES!'. Your utter contempt for other people, Palestinians in particular, makes your accusation of ME being racist a bit shallow. Being a busy social activist who campaigns for an end to racism and war, I find it peculiar that someone who supports Israel can come to this conclusion.

      You claim that Palestinians have killed Israelis. Sure they have. I don't deny that. But you refuse to accept the reason why this is happening. You refuse to admit reality, and without this, there really is no forum for discussion.

      It is heartening, however, to read that just recently, a group of Jewish scholars in the UK released a statement calling on Jews to allow other, non-fundamentalist views to be expressed in their community ... in particular, to allow for critical analysis of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and others. A week or so after this, the same situation was mirrored here in Australia. These are the Jewish views you should be listening to - those with the courage to stand up against a horror that is equal to that inflicted upon Jews by the Nazis, and is the height of hypocracy.

      Didn't I respond when I pointed out that the countries Israel are in conflict with are factors of ten worse in most any human rights parameter -- so you probably made a world record(!) in size of double standards when you claimed that Israel was worth a thousand times more criticism than e.g. Sudan?

      If I remember correctly, you responded by claiming that Israel was the model of democracy and peace. That's hardly a well thought through response. It might cut it inside Israel where there is really only one opinion that gets voiced, but for people outside the propaganda machine, it doesn't cut it ... not by a long shot. You see, you can't defend Israel by pointing at other countries and saying "But THEY'RE getting away with such-and-such". The fact is that problems in other countries are bad, but pale in comparison to the 50-year incredibly one-sided campaign of terror and genocide that you have subjected the Palestinians to. The other key difference is that problems in Sudan etc are INTERNAL problems. Maybe they cross country borders, but only because those countries have artificial borders. The Israeli problem is a truly international one, where Jews from all around the world have taken a country by force ( backed all the way by Western powers ), and inflicted 50 years of terrorism and suffering on the indigenous population. The scale is without precedent. This is why the peace movement internationally is in 100% agreement that the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is the most important conflict for us to concentrate on, and in fact all other conflicts would at least partly dissolve when a just solution is achieved.

      When I showed that you were wrong about your claims about the Jews being mass murderers at the Nakba

      You didn't show anything. You lied, claiming that the event didn't happen as it did. See my above comments re: Holocaust deniers.

      You made wrong claims about Jenin

      Holocaust denier.

      I didn't respond when I disagreed and showed your antisemite lies to be wrong yet again?

      Not antisemitic, no. Anti- Israeli . One of my best friends is a Jew, and a founding member of 'Jews against the occupation'.

      In my last post, didn't I respond when I pointed out how extremely bad style it is in the western world to do racist attacks?

      Oh come on. Israel is the most racist state on the planet. People who criticise aren't automatically racist or antisemitic.

  122. Again blatant lies in the first paragraph! by BerntB · · Score: 1

    I just read your first half paragraph since that was enough to find shameless lies. Since I didn't read the rest, I don't know if there are more racist attacks there, you extreme troll and/or lying asshole.

    Well. No you've really just repeated the same lies. You've denied the Palestinian Holocaust, putting yourself on the level of the Nazis.

    I gave a reference to WikiPedia (which agrees with every non-antisemite source I've seen) that showed your version to be a pack of lies. The first time you made that claim, it might have been stupidity -- but you do lie here. As usual.

    And you've failed to respond to the 4 examples I gave you of your people killing hundreds of Palestinians at a time

    "Strange" that you didn't give references to these "4 examples"!! Here is where I showed you wrong first. You then tried Jenin and Nakba -- I showed Nakba wrong in the Wikipedia reference above and Jenin here.. Now you invent more examples that you can't give references to! How pathetic you are. (And here is a short list of a few more of all your lies.)

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  123. Some more of your lies, racist by BerntB · · Score: 1
    I took the time to point out where you lie in some more paragraphs. I didn't have the energy to read them all -- you lie continuously about what I've written and attack that.

    You claim that Palestinians have killed Israelis. Sure they have. I don't deny that. But you refuse to accept the reason why this is happening. You refuse to admit reality, and without this, there really is no forum for discussion.

    You do a straw man attack on what I have written -- that means you lie a description of my position and then attack what you described. I have not discussed the Israel-Palestina conflict at all (as I wrote here).

    I have just pointed out where you make statements you can't defend and then lie when denying them. Here you lie so that people browsing won't find e.g. when you used racist slurs like "You stupid fucking retarded Jew!", racist asshole.

    It is heartening, however, to read that just recently, a group of Jewish scholars in the UK released a statement calling on Jews to allow other, non-fundamentalist views to be expressed in their community ... in particular, to allow for critical analysis of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and others

    Are you lying here or just totally uneducated about the peace movement (see also this) in Israel and all the very varied political standpoints? Please note what a demonstration of 400,000 means in a country with that low population... You are probably lying since I pointed out this before.

    If I remember correctly, you responded by claiming that Israel was the model of democracy and peace. That's hardly a well thought through response. [...]

    I pointed out that Israel is a working democracy and that you lied when you claimed that Arab citizens (20% of the population) didn't have votes... That was not the full argument I gave -- you do another straw man here. I used that as argument here.

    You didn't show anything. You lied, claiming that the event didn't happen as it did. See my above comments re: Holocaust deniers.

    As I commented in the other message, you lie here. I gave a reference here -- and you gave none. I think your position is normal Arab antisemitic propaganda.

    One of my best friends is a Jew

    You are joking -- not even you with your lies, racist slurs and shameless straw man attacks would write that!?

    This is just too... much.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Some more of your lies, racist by vandan · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you can't handle reality. You still haven't responded to any of my points, instead using the typical Zionist defense: "Help! Help! I'm being lied to by a racist!"

      As I said before, I really only have time to respond to people who have a serious point to make. If you have one, then make it. Otherwise go stand in a mall that a suicide bomber is about to hit.

  124. Your only argument -- lies about me by BerntB · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you can't handle reality. You still haven't responded to any of my points

    I get tired of adding this reference to where I showed you wrong -- I should add a bunch of places where you repeated that claim, ignoring that I had answered.

    This is a good review of some of your pathetic tries to argue (should add references to your straw man attacks on this point -- and lies when you claim I haven't answered).

    instead using the typical Zionist defense: "Help! Help! I'm being lied to by a racist!"

    Wow, that was really impressive dishonesty when commenting on a quote of yours -- "You stupid fucking retarded Jew!".

    And I also noted that I don't really care about the Mid East either, so your racist attacks only speaks volumes about yourself.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Your only argument -- lies about me by vandan · · Score: 1

      I get tired of adding this reference to where I showed you wrong

      There is a difference between lying to support your claim that I am wrong, and actually 'showing' that I am wrong. You denied, for example, that Israel killed a family on a Palestinian beach, which triggered the latest round of attrocities against Palestine, as well as the Lebanon war. You proudly claim that you have 'shown me to be wrong', but the evidence is against you here:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1796861, 00.html
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,17945 36,00.html
      http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/13/isrlpa13544 .htm
      http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/20/israb13595. htm
      http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/hamasinpower/I ssues_with_Israel/10045980.html

      I suppose you have 'shown' that all these sources are lying, right? The mere fact that they report this news demonstrates that they are part of an antisemitic conspiracy to assist the dogs of Palestine drive the innocent Jews into the sea, right? I know how it goes.
  125. You have ANYTHING but straw man attacks?? by BerntB · · Score: 1

    You denied, for example, that Israel killed a family on a Palestinian beach, which triggered the latest round of attrocities against Palestine, as well as the Lebanon war

    Ahh... the old standard for non-serious debaters -- accuse the other side of doing the same lies as you do yourself, so anyone reading will just see two people calling each others the same names!

    I didn't deny anything. You lie about what I wrote and do a straw man attack. I wrote:

    Everyone that disagree with you is a Jew? The Israelis motivated why it probably wasn't a miss from their artillery but a Palestinian mine on the beach -- did the IDF lie or was it wrong? I don't know. You don't know either -- but you are certain who is guilty! It is always the Jews!!

    (You stopped racist attacks after I pointed out in that message how bad they are in the West...)

    Google for Pallywood to find out why I don't trust either side (the Israeli side probably do something similar). You might make a good argument that the media planning seems more important than any weapons.

    I note that the IDF don't earn political points by killing civilians (you argue that Israel is evil -- still no comments to my references to the Israeli peace movement, btw?). After the start of a civil war, few doubts the Palestinians lack the will to kill a family of some other clan.

    What happened at that beach? Again -- I don't have enough information to have an opinion -- and you lie about what I wrote. Business as usual.

    (The articles I quoted had some references to where I've shown you wrong. I have lost count since this garbage began about here.)

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )